On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:40 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:17 PM Yauheni Kaliuta
> <yauheni.kaliuta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> `unique` in make world is just $(sort $VAR). Isn't that a more
> light-weight and generic way to avoid duplicates in lib.mk?
Oh, my bad, totally forgot it. Sure! Thanks!
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> I don't exactly understand the implications, so don't know. But the
> less changes to this Makefile, the happier I am, so... :)
So, no way ;)
It would be relatively many changes, but more simple code without extra $$.
>
> >
> > >>
> > >> # Evaluate rules now with extra TRUNNER_XXX variables above already defined
> > >> $$(eval $$(call DEFINE_TEST_RUNNER_RULES,$1,$2))
> > >> --
> > >> 2.26.2
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR,
> > Yauheni Kaliuta
> >
>
--
WBR, Yauheni
