Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfstests: Fix installation for extended names

Dave Chinner
2016-07-12T02:38:03Z

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:29:42AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 06:09:06PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
> >> xfstests supports extended test names like 314-foo-bar, but installation of
> >> these tests was skipped (not matching a regexp). So this patch fixes the
> >> makefiles in tests/*/
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> UPDATE:
> >> Rewritten, now it doesn't fail without the extended name, and doesn't
> >> suppress anything. Thanks Dave.
> >> ---
> >> tests/btrfs/Makefile | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> >> tests/cifs/Makefile | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> >> tests/ext4/Makefile | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> >> tests/f2fs/Makefile | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
> >> tests/generic/Makefile | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> >> tests/overlay/Makefile | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> tests/shared/Makefile | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> >> tests/udf/Makefile | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> >> tests/xfs/Makefile | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> >> 9 files changed, 155 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/Makefile b/tests/btrfs/Makefile
> >> index e1a5be1..0301d78 100644
> >> --- a/tests/btrfs/Makefile
> >> +++ b/tests/btrfs/Makefile
> >> @@ -5,16 +5,29 @@
> >> TOPDIR = ../..
> >> include $(TOPDIR)/include/builddefs
> >>
> >> -BTRFS_DIR = btrfs
> >> -TARGET_DIR = $(PKG_LIB_DIR)/$(TESTS_DIR)/$(BTRFS_DIR)
> >> +GROUP_DIR = btrfs
> >> +TARGET_DIR = $(PKG_LIB_DIR)/$(TESTS_DIR)/$(GROUP_DIR)
> >
> > What's this change for?
> >
> > Please don't make random undocumented changes when updating a
> > patchset. It is best not to change anything unrelated to the problem
> > being solved.
> >
> >
> >> include $(BUILDRULES)
> >>
> >> +# note: the second TESTS wildcard gets also .out files, but these will be
> >> +# overwritten with correct permissions a moment later, as they are also in
> >> +# OUTPUTS. Regexps here are really limited, so I didn't find a better
> >> +# solution...
> >> +TESTS = $(wildcard [0-9][0-9][0-9])
> >> +TESTS += $(wildcard [0-9][0-9][0-9]-*)
> >
> > Ugh. The hacks need to be constrained to the makefile and not do
> > nasty things with installed files.
> >
> > What I think should be done here is to turn the selection around the
> > other way because we can select the output files directly and
> > correctly. We can then use that to build the test list via stripping
> > and filtering as all tests must have an output file associated with
> > them.
> >
> > So:
> >
> > # Start with all test related files:
> > ALLFILES = $(wildcard [0-9]??*)
> >
> > # Now build a list of known output files. Unfortunately, the
> > # multiple output test files are poorly handled as makefiles don't
> > # handle wildcarded multi-suffix matching. Hence we separate the
> > # processing of these right now.
> > EXTENDED_OUTFILES = $(wildcard [0-9]??*.out.*)
> > BASIC_OUTFILES = $(wildcard [0-9]??*.out)
> > OUTFILES = $(EXTENDED_OUTFILES) $(BASIC_OUTFILES)
> >
> > # Strip suffix to get matching tests. We want to strip from the
> > # first "." to the end, but makefiles don't have a built in
> > # operative for that. So:
> > #
> > # Hack: strip the multiple segments after .out with repeated basename calls.
> > EXTFILTER1 = $(basename $(EXTENDED_OUTFILES))
> > EXTFILTER2 = $(basename $(EXTFILTER1))
> > EXTFILTER3 = $(basename $(EXTFILTER2))
> > EXTFILTER4 = $(basename $(EXTFILTER3))
> >
> > # final filter list
> > FILTER = $(basename $(EXTFILTER4) $(BASIC_OUTFILES))
> >
> > # finally, select the test files by filtering against against the
> > # stripped output files and sort them to remove duplicates.
> > TESTS = $(sort $(filter $(ALLFILES), $(FILTER)))
> >
> > That will give you two lists - "OUTFILES" which are all the output
> > files that need to be installed, and "TESTS" which are all the tests
> > that should be installed. There will be no overlap between these two
> > lists.
> >
> > I'd also suggest that this can probably be put in the BUILDRULES
> > file, as it will be common to all makefiles and doesn't need to be
> > repeated in every makefile.
> >
>
> Thanks for your code. I submitted a modified patch, though I have a question...
> Should I put you into Signed-of-by in this case, as you wrote most of
> the new version of this patch?

No. You wrote the patch, so it needs your SOB. The usual thing to do
here is add a line to the commit message saying something like:

"Based on work/idea/prototype/code from ..."

that way it's clear where it originally came from. If the maintainer
requires further verification of the source of the code, I can ack
the patch you sent to the list.

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com