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
