Hi, Andrii! >>>>> On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:30:19 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:14 PM Yauheni Kaliuta > <yauheni.kaliuta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> There are problems with bpf test programs object files: >> >> 1) some of them are build for flavored test runner and should be >> installed in the subdirectory; >> 2) it's possible that the same file mentioned several times (added >> for every different unflavored test runner); >> 3) some generated files are not treated properly. >> >> Fix 1) by adding subdirectory to the list. rsync -a in the install >> target will handle it. >> >> Fix 2) by filtering the list. Performance should not matter for such >> amount of files. >> >> Fix 3) by use proper (TEST_GEN_FILES) variable for the list. >> >> Fixes: 309b81f0fdc4 ("selftests/bpf: Install generated test progs") >> Fixes: e47a179997ce ("bpf, testing: Add missing object file to >> TEST_FILES") >> >> Signed-off-by: Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 9 ++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile >> index 19091dbc8ca4..1ba3d72c3261 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile >> @@ -42,8 +42,7 @@ ifneq ($(BPF_GCC),) >> TEST_GEN_PROGS += test_progs-bpf_gcc >> endif >> >> -TEST_GEN_FILES = >> -TEST_FILES = test_lwt_ip_encap.o \ >> +TEST_GEN_FILES = test_lwt_ip_encap.o \ >> test_tc_edt.o >> >> BTF_C_FILES = $(wildcard progs/btf_dump_test_case_*.c) >> @@ -273,7 +272,11 @@ TRUNNER_BPF_OBJS := $$(patsubst %.c,$$(TRUNNER_OUTPUT)/%.o, $$(TRUNNER_BPF_SRCS) >> TRUNNER_BPF_SKELS := $$(patsubst %.c,$$(TRUNNER_OUTPUT)/%.skel.h, \ >> $$(filter-out $(SKEL_BLACKLIST), \ >> $$(TRUNNER_BPF_SRCS))) >> -TEST_GEN_FILES += $$(TRUNNER_BPF_OBJS) >> + >> +TO_ADD := $(if $2,$$(TRUNNER_OUTPUT),$$(TRUNNER_BPF_OBJS)) >> +$$(foreach i,$$(TO_ADD),\ >> + $$(eval \ >> + TEST_GEN_FILES += $$(if $$(filter $$i,$$(TEST_GEN_FILES)),,$$i))) > This makes me cringe. Can we not have three levels of nested > evals, please? I also didn't get exactly what's the problem > you are trying to solve, could you give some example, please? It's sort of `unique` functionality. With the current approach TEST_GEN_FILES has at least 2 copies of an object file (for call test_progs and test_maps) which is both inaccurate and increasing the length of the variable (even if copying the same file should not cause problems). (Without sub-directory handling it's even overwritten by flavoured binaries in between). BTW, how would you like to change $(call ...) with $(value ...)? It will get rid of one level of indirection but requires rule-specific variables for rule generation, since some evaluations are done in recipies. >> >> # Evaluate rules now with extra TRUNNER_XXX variables above already defined >> $$(eval $$(call DEFINE_TEST_RUNNER_RULES,$1,$2)) >> -- >> 2.26.2 >> -- WBR, Yauheni Kaliuta