Re: [PATCH] selftests: Install settings files to fix TIMEOUT failures

[Shuah Khan]

On 2/20/20 10:12 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On 2/20/20 3:51 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:42:41PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > > Commit 852c8cbf34d3 ("selftests/kselftest/runner.sh: Add 45 second
> > > > timeout per test") added a 45 second timeout for tests, and also added
> > > > a way for tests to customise the timeout via a settings file.
> > > >
> > > > For example the ftrace tests take multiple minutes to run, so they
> > > > were given longer in commit b43e78f65b1d ("tracing/selftests: Turn off
> > > > timeout setting").
> > > >
> > > > This works when the tests are run from the source tree. However if the
> > > > tests are installed with "make -C tools/testing/selftests install",
> > > > the settings files are not copied into the install directory. When the
> > > > tests are then run from the install directory the longer timeouts are
> > > > not applied and the tests timeout incorrectly.
> > >
> > > Eek, yes, nice catch.
> > >
> > > > So add the settings files to TEST_FILES of the appropriate Makefiles
> > > > to cause the settings files to be installed using the existing install
> > > > logic.
> > >
> > > Instead, shouldn't lib.mk "notice" the settings file and automatically
> > > include it in TEST_FILES instead of having to do this in each separate
> > > Makefile?
> >
> > Let's keep it custom per test for now.
>
> Yeah that seems less magical.
>
> FWIW the patch below does work, so it's a small patch, but I'm not sure
> it's worth the added complexity vs just listing the file in the few
> tests that need it.

I am not seeing a whole lot of benefit in doing this in lib.mk
Test authors have to think about which files to include in
TEST_FILES and add it to Makefile anyway.

My second reason is I would like authors to think about the settings
as opposed to just duplicate from another test. This timeout changes
the kselftest run-time and behavior.

I am also finding making features generic has downsides to it unless
we are smart about it. We have several overrides already for things
that made perfect sense to make generic.

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
> index 1c8a1963d03f..82086c6ad5e7 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
> @@ -20,6 +20,10 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS := $(patsubst %,$(OUTPUT)/%,$(TEST_GEN_PROGS))
>   TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED := $(patsubst %,$(OUTPUT)/%,$(TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED))
>   TEST_GEN_FILES := $(patsubst %,$(OUTPUT)/%,$(TEST_GEN_FILES))
>   
> +ifeq ($(wildcard settings),settings)
> +       TEST_FILES += settings
> +endif
> +
>   ifdef KSFT_KHDR_INSTALL
>   top_srcdir ?= ../../../..
>   include $(top_srcdir)/scripts/subarch.include

Thanks for the patch though. We can consider adding it a later time, if
we see value in making this generic.

thanks,
-- Shuah