From: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
This is a follow up series to address a simple lib.mk installation issue[1].
Essentially, install is being called without checking that there exists test
artifacts to install, which in turn causes 'make install' to fail. By creating
a simple loop we can avoid if/elif/else blocks to determine if install actually
needs to be called.
I've tested this series by building and deploying tests on x86[2], arm64[3], and arm[4]
platforms.
This series is based on next-20150512.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/20/746
[2] http://lava.kernelci.org/scheduler/job/83448/log_file#L_40
[3] http://lava.kernelci.org/scheduler/job/83665/log_file#L_44
[4] http://lava.kernelci.org/scheduler/job/83442/log_file#L_65
Tyler Baker (2):
selftests/lib.mk: fix INSTALL_RULE
selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built
tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +--
tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 6 ++++--
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--
2.1.4
From: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
This patch fixes the INSTALL_RULE to gracefully handle the case where
TEST_PROGS and TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED and TEST_FILES are not set. In this case,
install is called without any SOURCE arguments causing make install to fail.
The proposed fix is to loop over the items in these variables and only call
install if there is a test artifact present.
Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
index ee412ba..89dd785f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
@@ -13,10 +13,12 @@ run_tests: all
define INSTALL_RULE
mkdir -p $(INSTALL_PATH)
- @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do\
+ @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do \
cp -r $$TEST_DIR $(INSTALL_PATH); \
done;
- install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES)
+ @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \
+ install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \
+ done;
endef
install: all
--
2.1.4
From: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
Set TEST_PROGS only when a build has occurred.
Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
index 1822356..54cc3e7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
@@ -12,12 +12,11 @@ endif
all:
ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
gcc breakpoint_test.c -o breakpoint_test
+ TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
else
echo "Not an x86 target, can't build breakpoints selftests"
endif
-TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
-
include ../lib.mk
clean:
--
2.1.4
On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
This is odd. Did you use git send-email to send the patches?
-- Shuah
>
> This patch fixes the INSTALL_RULE to gracefully handle the case where
> TEST_PROGS and TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED and TEST_FILES are not set. In this case,
> install is called without any SOURCE arguments causing make install to fail.
> The proposed fix is to loop over the items in these variables and only call
> install if there is a test artifact present.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
> index ee412ba..89dd785f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
> @@ -13,10 +13,12 @@ run_tests: all
>
> define INSTALL_RULE
> mkdir -p $(INSTALL_PATH)
> - @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do\
> + @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do \
> cp -r $$TEST_DIR $(INSTALL_PATH); \
> done;
> - install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES)
> + @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \
> + install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \
> + done;
> endef
>
> install: all
>
--
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
[email protected] | (970) 217-8978
On 12 May 2015 at 15:02, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> From: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
>
> This is odd. Did you use git send-email to send the patches?
Yes I did.
>
> -- Shuah
>>
>> This patch fixes the INSTALL_RULE to gracefully handle the case where
>> TEST_PROGS and TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED and TEST_FILES are not set. In this case,
>> install is called without any SOURCE arguments causing make install to fail.
>> The proposed fix is to loop over the items in these variables and only call
>> install if there is a test artifact present.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
>> index ee412ba..89dd785f 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
>> @@ -13,10 +13,12 @@ run_tests: all
>>
>> define INSTALL_RULE
>> mkdir -p $(INSTALL_PATH)
>> - @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do\
>> + @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do \
>> cp -r $$TEST_DIR $(INSTALL_PATH); \
>> done;
>> - install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES)
>> + @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \
>> + install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \
>> + done;
>> endef
>>
>> install: all
>>
>
>
> --
> Shuah Khan
> Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
> Open Source Innovation Group
> Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
> [email protected] | (970) 217-8978
--
Tyler Baker
Tech Lead, LAVA
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
On 05/12/2015 04:04 PM, Tyler Baker wrote:
> On 12 May 2015 at 15:02, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> From: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
>>
>> This is odd. Did you use git send-email to send the patches?
>
> Yes I did.
>
No need to resend. I will try to apply them. Check your .gitconfig.
The extra From is odd.
-- Shuah
--
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
[email protected] | (970) 217-8978
On 12 May 2015 at 15:07, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/12/2015 04:04 PM, Tyler Baker wrote:
>> On 12 May 2015 at 15:02, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> From: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> This is odd. Did you use git send-email to send the patches?
>>
>> Yes I did.
>>
>
> No need to resend. I will try to apply them. Check your .gitconfig.
> The extra From is odd.
Sorry about that, not sure why this has happened. I'll investigate on
my end. Thanks.
>
> -- Shuah
>
> --
> Shuah Khan
> Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
> Open Source Innovation Group
> Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
> [email protected] | (970) 217-8978
--
Tyler Baker
Tech Lead, LAVA
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
>
> Set TEST_PROGS only when a build has occurred.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
> index 1822356..54cc3e7 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
> @@ -12,12 +12,11 @@ endif
> all:
> ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
> gcc breakpoint_test.c -o breakpoint_test
> + TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
> else
> echo "Not an x86 target, can't build breakpoints selftests"
> endif
>
> -TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
> -
> include ../lib.mk
>
> clean:
>
Hmm. With this change install fails to copy breakpoint_test all
together. Remember setting TEST_PROGS in compile step makes it
not stick around when install target is called. A better approach
would be the following:
if [ -f breakpoint_test ]
TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
fi
include ../lib.mk
-- Shuah
--
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
[email protected] | (970) 217-8978
On 13 May 2015 at 14:41, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> From: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
>>
>> Set TEST_PROGS only when a build has occurred.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +--
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>> index 1822356..54cc3e7 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>> @@ -12,12 +12,11 @@ endif
>> all:
>> ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
>> gcc breakpoint_test.c -o breakpoint_test
>> + TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
>> else
>> echo "Not an x86 target, can't build breakpoints selftests"
>> endif
>>
>> -TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
>> -
>> include ../lib.mk
>>
>> clean:
>>
>
> Hmm. With this change install fails to copy breakpoint_test all
> together. Remember setting TEST_PROGS in compile step makes it
> not stick around when install target is called. A better approach
> would be the following:
>
> if [ -f breakpoint_test ]
> TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
> fi
Thanks for pointing this out, this is a good catch. We will also need
to do this for the x86 tests IIRC. Would it make more sense to have
this check performed in the INSTALL_RULE so that we don't have to have
a bunch of IF statements in the various Makefiles?
Something like...
@for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \
if [ -f $$ARTIFACT ]; then \
install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \
fi; \
done;
>
> include ../lib.mk
>
> -- Shuah
>
> --
> Shuah Khan
> Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
> Open Source Innovation Group
> Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
> [email protected] | (970) 217-8978
Cheers,
Tyler
On 05/14/2015 08:15 AM, Tyler Baker wrote:
> On 13 May 2015 at 14:41, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> From: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Set TEST_PROGS only when a build has occurred.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +--
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>>> index 1822356..54cc3e7 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>>> @@ -12,12 +12,11 @@ endif
>>> all:
>>> ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
>>> gcc breakpoint_test.c -o breakpoint_test
>>> + TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
>>> else
>>> echo "Not an x86 target, can't build breakpoints selftests"
>>> endif
>>>
>>> -TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
>>> -
>>> include ../lib.mk
>>>
>>> clean:
>>>
>>
>> Hmm. With this change install fails to copy breakpoint_test all
>> together. Remember setting TEST_PROGS in compile step makes it
>> not stick around when install target is called. A better approach
>> would be the following:
>>
>> if [ -f breakpoint_test ]
>> TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
>> fi
>
> Thanks for pointing this out, this is a good catch. We will also need
> to do this for the x86 tests IIRC. Would it make more sense to have
> this check performed in the INSTALL_RULE so that we don't have to have
> a bunch of IF statements in the various Makefiles?
Right. x86 will need this type of logic for 32-bit execs when they
aren't not built on a 64-bit system, and for 64-bit execs when they
aren't built on a 32-bit system.
>
> Something like...
>
> @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \
> if [ -f $$ARTIFACT ]; then \
> install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \
> fi; \
> done;
>
I think it makes perfect sense to do this in INSTALL_RULE.
As you said, this will avoid changes to test individual
Makefiles and new test writers don't have to worry about
adding this.
Would you like make the necessary changes?
thanks,
-- Shuah
--
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
[email protected] | (970) 217-8978
On 14 May 2015 at 08:27, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/14/2015 08:15 AM, Tyler Baker wrote:
>> On 13 May 2015 at 14:41, Shuah Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> From: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Set TEST_PROGS only when a build has occurred.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +--
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>>>> index 1822356..54cc3e7 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>>>> @@ -12,12 +12,11 @@ endif
>>>> all:
>>>> ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
>>>> gcc breakpoint_test.c -o breakpoint_test
>>>> + TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
>>>> else
>>>> echo "Not an x86 target, can't build breakpoints selftests"
>>>> endif
>>>>
>>>> -TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
>>>> -
>>>> include ../lib.mk
>>>>
>>>> clean:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm. With this change install fails to copy breakpoint_test all
>>> together. Remember setting TEST_PROGS in compile step makes it
>>> not stick around when install target is called. A better approach
>>> would be the following:
>>>
>>> if [ -f breakpoint_test ]
>>> TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
>>> fi
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out, this is a good catch. We will also need
>> to do this for the x86 tests IIRC. Would it make more sense to have
>> this check performed in the INSTALL_RULE so that we don't have to have
>> a bunch of IF statements in the various Makefiles?
>
> Right. x86 will need this type of logic for 32-bit execs when they
> aren't not built on a 64-bit system, and for 64-bit execs when they
> aren't built on a 32-bit system.
Considering the change below we can now simplify this case for x86 to:
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
index 12d8e76..3e238d0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile
@@ -14,13 +14,9 @@ UNAME_M := $(shell uname -m)
ifeq ($(CROSS_COMPILE),)
# Always build 32-bit tests
all: all_32
-# Install 32-bit tests
-TEST_PROGS += $(BINARIES_32) run_x86_tests.sh
# If we're on a 64-bit host, build 64-bit tests as well
ifeq ($(UNAME_M),x86_64)
all: all_64
-# Install 64-bit tests
-TEST_PROGS += $(BINARIES_64)
endif
endif
@@ -28,6 +24,9 @@ all_32: check_build32 $(BINARIES_32)
all_64: $(BINARIES_64)
+# Install the tests
+TEST_PROGS := $(BINARIES_32) $(BINARIES_64) run_x86_tests.sh
+
include ../lib.mk
clean:
If the binaries do not exist, they will be not be installed. If you
and Andy are ok with this, I'll add a patch to this series.
>
>>
>> Something like...
>>
>> @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \
>> if [ -f $$ARTIFACT ]; then \
>> install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \
>> fi; \
>> done;
>>
>
> I think it makes perfect sense to do this in INSTALL_RULE.
> As you said, this will avoid changes to test individual
> Makefiles and new test writers don't have to worry about
> adding this.
>
> Would you like make the necessary changes?
Sure, I'll add this in the next revision.
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>
>
> --
> Shuah Khan
> Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
> Open Source Innovation Group
> Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
> [email protected] | (970) 217-8978
Cheers,
Tyler