From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] lib: adding .supported_archs field in tst_test structure
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:34:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YYkZXtBn+ZKOXVzB@yuki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211108021450.1460819-1-liwang@redhat.com>
Hi!
> Testcases for specific arch should be limited on that only being supported
> platform to run, we now involve a .supported_archs to achieve this feature
> in LTP library. All you need to run a test on the expected arch is to set
> the '.supported_archs' array in the 'struct tst_test' to choose the required
> arch list. e.g.
>
> .supported_archs = (const char *const []){"x86_64", "ppc64", NULL}
>
> This helps move the TCONF info from code to tst_test metadata as well.
>
> And, we also export a struct tst_arch to save the system architecture
> for using in the whole test cases.
>
> extern struct arch {
> char name[16];
> enum tst_arch_type type;
> } tst_arch;
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
> ---
> doc/c-test-api.txt | 36 +++++++++++++++
> include/tst_arch.h | 39 ++++++++++++++++
> include/tst_test.h | 10 +++++
> lib/tst_arch.c | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 193 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 include/tst_arch.h
> create mode 100644 lib/tst_arch.c
>
> diff --git a/doc/c-test-api.txt b/doc/c-test-api.txt
> index 3127018a4..5e32b7075 100644
> --- a/doc/c-test-api.txt
> +++ b/doc/c-test-api.txt
> @@ -2261,6 +2261,42 @@ struct tst_test test = {
> };
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> +1.39 Testing on the specific architecture
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Testcases for specific arch should be limited on that only being supported
> +platform to run, we now involve a .supported_archs to achieve this feature
> +in LTP library. All you need to run a test on the expected arch is to set
> +the '.supported_archs' array in the 'struct tst_test' to choose the required
> +arch list. e.g.
> +
> + .supported_archs = (const char *const []){"x86_64", "ppc64", NULL}
> +
> +This helps move the TCONF info from code to tst_test metadata as well.
> +
> +And, we also export a struct tst_arch to save the system architecture for
> +using in the whole test cases.
> +
> + extern struct arch {
> + char name[16];
> + enum tst_arch_type type;
> + } tst_arch;
> +
> +[source,c]
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +#include "tst_test.h"
> +
> +static struct tst_test test = {
> + ...
> + .setup = setup,
> + .supported_archs = (const char *const []) {
> + "x86_64",
> + "ppc64",
> + "s390x",
> + NULL
> + },
> +};
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +
> 2. Common problems
> ------------------
>
> diff --git a/include/tst_arch.h b/include/tst_arch.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..784c3093b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/tst_arch.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> + * Copyright (c) 2021 Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef TST_ARCH_H__
> +#define TST_ARCH_H__
> +
> +enum tst_arch_type {
> + TST_I386,
> + TST_X86,
Why do we have both i386 and X86 here? Isn't __i386__ synonymous for
__x86__ does gcc even define __x86__?
I doubt that we care about the differencies between i386, i586 and i686
at all. I would just keep TST_X86 in the list for any 32bit intel
compatible hardware.
> + TST_X86_64,
> + TST_IA64,
> + TST_PPC,
> + TST_PPC64,
> + TST_S390,
> + TST_S390X,
> + TST_ARM,
> + TST_AARCH64,
> + TST_SPARC,
> +};
> +
> +/*
> + * This tst_arch is to save the system architecture for
> + * using in the whole testcase.
> + */
> +extern struct arch {
> + char name[16];
> + enum tst_arch_type type;
> +} tst_arch;
the struct should be prefixed with tst_ as well. i.e.
extern struct tst_arch {
...
> +/*
> + * Check if test platform is in the given arch list. If yes return 1,
> + * otherwise return 0.
> + *
> + * @archlist A NULL terminated array of architectures to support.
> + */
> +int tst_is_on_arch(const char *const *archlist);
> +
> +#endif /* TST_ARCH_H__ */
> diff --git a/include/tst_test.h b/include/tst_test.h
> index 3dcb45de0..7611520ee 100644
> --- a/include/tst_test.h
> +++ b/include/tst_test.h
> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
> #include "tst_fips.h"
> #include "tst_taint.h"
> #include "tst_memutils.h"
> +#include "tst_arch.h"
>
> /*
> * Reports testcase result.
> @@ -139,6 +140,12 @@ struct tst_test {
>
> const char *min_kver;
>
> + /*
> + * The supported_archs is a NULL terminated list of archs the test
> + * does support.
> + */
> + const char *const *supported_archs;
> +
> /* If set the test is compiled out */
> const char *tconf_msg;
>
> @@ -316,6 +323,9 @@ static struct tst_test test;
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> + if (!tst_is_on_arch(test.supported_archs))
> + tst_brk(TCONF, "This arch '%s' is not supported for test!", tst_arch.name);
Why are you putting this check into the header? All the other checks are
in the do_setup() in lib/tst_test.c
> tst_run_tcases(argc, argv, &test);
> }
>
> diff --git a/lib/tst_arch.c b/lib/tst_arch.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..ae5817075
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/tst_arch.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> + * Copyright (c) 2021 Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
> + */
> +
> +#include <string.h>
> +#include <stdlib.h>
> +
> +#define TST_NO_DEFAULT_MAIN
> +#include "tst_arch.h"
> +#include "tst_test.h"
> +
> +struct arch tst_arch;
> +
> +static const char *const arch_type_list[] = {
> + "i386",
> + "x86",
> + "x86_64",
> + "ia64",
> + "ppc",
> + "ppc64",
> + "s390",
> + "s390x",
> + "arm",
> + "aarch64",
> + "sparc",
> + NULL
> +};
> +
> +static int is_matched_arch(const char *arch, const char *name)
> +{
> + if (strcmp(arch, name) == 0)
> + return 1;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int is_valid_arch_name(const char *name)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; arch_type_list[i]; i++) {
> + if (is_matched_arch(arch_type_list[i], name))
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void get_system_arch(void)
> +{
> +#if defined(__i386__)
> + strcpy(tst_arch.name, "i386");
> + tst_arch.type = TST_I386;
> +#elif defined(__x86__)
> + strcpy(tst_arch.name, "x86");
> + tst_arch.type = TST_X86;
> +#elif defined(__x86_64__)
> + strcpy(tst_arch.name, "x86_64");
> + tst_arch.type = TST_X86_64;
> +#elif defined(__ia64__)
> + strcpy(tst_arch.name, "ia64");
> + tst_arch.type = TST_IA64;
> +#elif defined(__powerpc__)
> + strcpy(tst_arch.name, "ppc");
> + tst_arch.type = TST_PPC;
> +#elif defined(__powerpc64__)
> + strcpy(tst_arch.name, "ppc64");
> + tst_arch.type = TST_PPC64;
> +#elif defined(__s390x__)
> + strcpy(tst_arch.name, "s390x");
> + tst_arch.type = TST_S390X;
> +#elif defined(__s390__)
> + strcpy(tst_arch.name, "s390");
> + tst_arch.type = TST_S390;
> +#elif defined(__arm__)
> + strcpy(tst_arch.name, "s390x");
> + tst_arch.type = TST_ARM;
> +#elif defined(__aarch64__)
> + strcpy(tst_arch.name, "aarch64");
> + tst_arch.type = TST_AARCH64;
> +#elif defined(__sparc__)
> + strcpy(tst_arch.name, "sparc");
> + tst_arch.type = TST_SPARC;
> +#endif
> +}
Actually we can initialize this staically as:
const struct arch tst_arch = {
#if defined(__x86_64__)
.name = "x86_64",
.type = TST_X86_64,
#elif
...
#else
.name = "unknown",
.type = TST_ARCH_UNKNOWN,
#endif
};
> +int tst_is_on_arch(const char *const *archlist)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + get_system_arch();
> +
> + if (archlist == NULL)
> + return 1;
Just if (!archlist)
> + for (i = 0; archlist[i]; i++) {
> + if (!is_valid_arch_name(archlist[i]))
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "%s is invalid arch, please reset!",
^
fix?
> + archlist[i]);
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; archlist[i]; i++) {
> + if (is_matched_arch(tst_arch.name, archlist[i]))
I would just do !strcmp() here, there is no point in havin a function
that just calls strcmp() and returns the result.
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> --
> 2.31.1
>
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-08 12:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-08 2:14 [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] lib: adding .supported_archs field in tst_test structure Li Wang
2021-11-08 2:14 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 2/3] testcase: make use of .supported_archs Li Wang
2021-11-08 12:41 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-11-09 6:52 ` Li Wang
2021-11-08 2:14 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 3/3] max_map_count: replace ifdefs by tst_arch Li Wang
2021-11-08 12:44 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-11-09 9:35 ` Li Wang
2021-11-09 10:47 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-11-09 11:41 ` Li Wang
2021-11-08 12:34 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2021-11-09 7:52 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] lib: adding .supported_archs field in tst_test structure Li Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YYkZXtBn+ZKOXVzB@yuki \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=liwang@redhat.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.