On 03/15/2015 08:48 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 20:14 -0700, John Stultz wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Change the timers Makefile to make use of shared run and install >>> logic in lib.mk. Destructive tests are installed. Regular tests >>> are emited to run_kselftest script to match the run_tests behavior. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile | 20 +++++++++++--------- >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile >>> index 9da3498..61e7284 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile >>> @@ -7,19 +7,21 @@ bins = posix_timers nanosleep inconsistency-check nsleep-lat raw_skew \ >>> alarmtimer-suspend change_skew skew_consistency clocksource-switch \ >>> leap-a-day leapcrash set-tai set-2038 >>> >>> +TEST_PROGS = posix_timers nanosleep nsleep-lat set-timer-lat mqueue-lat \ >>> + inconsistency-check raw_skew >>> +TEST_FILES = threadtest alarmtimer-suspend valid-adjtimex change_skew \ >>> + skew_consistency clocksource-switch leap-a-day leapcrash \ >>> + set-tai set-2038 >>> + >>> +RUN_TESTS_WITH_ARGS := ./threadtest -t 30 -n 8 || echo "selftests: threadtest [FAIL]" >>> + >>> +EMIT_TESTS_WITH_ARGS := echo "$(RUN_TESTS_WITH_ARGS)" >>> + >> >> So my make-foo isn't very strong, but no objections from me. >> >> My only thoughts: >> 1) Would it be better if threadtest can be made to have better >> defaults for kselftest so you don't need that extra logic? > > That would help. But with the patch I just sent I think it's no bother, it's > only a little extra logic and it's only in the timers Makefile. Let's go with a threadtest patch with better defaults. It will emit scripts logic as well. Awesome. I just saw John's new patch in my Inbox. Thanks. > >> 2) While I get that TEST_FILES is likely going to be used to copy the >> destructive tests over, It feels a little like its being bundled in >> with something like data files that tests might need, which seems sort >> of hackish. Would TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED or something be more clear and >> make more sense? > > That doesn't really bother me. You're right that TEST_FILES is originally > intended for data files etc. but I don't think it's a big hack to use it for > other tests that shouldn't be run by default. Still if it bothers you I'm happy > to add a separate variable for it, they are cheap :) > Michael, Could you please make the change from TEST_FILES to TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED which is definitely better than overloading TEST_FILES? I think this would probably only change Add Install target patch. You can send me patch v5 with that change and I will override the next with your new one. Thanks for doing this. thanks, -- Shuah -- Shuah Khan Sr. Linux Kernel Developer Open Source Innovation Group Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | (970) 217-8978 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
