* [PATCH 0/2] selftests: installation fixes @ 2015-05-12 21:59 tyler.baker at linaro.org 2015-05-12 21:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] selftests/lib.mk: fix INSTALL_RULE tyler.baker at linaro.org 2015-05-12 21:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built tyler.baker at linaro.org 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: tyler.baker at linaro.org @ 2015-05-12 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> This is a follow up series to address a simple lib.mk installation issue[1]. Essentially, install is being called without checking that there exists test artifacts to install, which in turn causes 'make install' to fail. By creating a simple loop we can avoid if/elif/else blocks to determine if install actually needs to be called. I've tested this series by building and deploying tests on x86[2], arm64[3], and arm[4] platforms. This series is based on next-20150512. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/20/746 [2] http://lava.kernelci.org/scheduler/job/83448/log_file#L_40 [3] http://lava.kernelci.org/scheduler/job/83665/log_file#L_44 [4] http://lava.kernelci.org/scheduler/job/83442/log_file#L_65 Tyler Baker (2): selftests/lib.mk: fix INSTALL_RULE selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +-- tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 6 ++++-- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) -- 2.1.4 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] selftests/lib.mk: fix INSTALL_RULE 2015-05-12 21:59 [PATCH 0/2] selftests: installation fixes tyler.baker at linaro.org @ 2015-05-12 21:59 ` tyler.baker at linaro.org 2015-05-12 22:02 ` Shuah Khan 2015-05-12 21:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built tyler.baker at linaro.org 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: tyler.baker at linaro.org @ 2015-05-12 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> This patch fixes the INSTALL_RULE to gracefully handle the case where TEST_PROGS and TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED and TEST_FILES are not set. In this case, install is called without any SOURCE arguments causing make install to fail. The proposed fix is to loop over the items in these variables and only call install if there is a test artifact present. Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> --- tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk index ee412ba..89dd785f 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk @@ -13,10 +13,12 @@ run_tests: all define INSTALL_RULE mkdir -p $(INSTALL_PATH) - @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do\ + @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do \ cp -r $$TEST_DIR $(INSTALL_PATH); \ done; - install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES) + @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \ + install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \ + done; endef install: all -- 2.1.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] selftests/lib.mk: fix INSTALL_RULE 2015-05-12 21:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] selftests/lib.mk: fix INSTALL_RULE tyler.baker at linaro.org @ 2015-05-12 22:02 ` Shuah Khan 2015-05-12 22:04 ` Tyler Baker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Shuah Khan @ 2015-05-12 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, tyler.baker at linaro.org wrote: > From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> This is odd. Did you use git send-email to send the patches? -- Shuah > > This patch fixes the INSTALL_RULE to gracefully handle the case where > TEST_PROGS and TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED and TEST_FILES are not set. In this case, > install is called without any SOURCE arguments causing make install to fail. > The proposed fix is to loop over the items in these variables and only call > install if there is a test artifact present. > > Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk > index ee412ba..89dd785f 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk > @@ -13,10 +13,12 @@ run_tests: all > > define INSTALL_RULE > mkdir -p $(INSTALL_PATH) > - @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do\ > + @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do \ > cp -r $$TEST_DIR $(INSTALL_PATH); \ > done; > - install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES) > + @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \ > + install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \ > + done; > endef > > install: all > -- Shuah Khan Sr. Linux Kernel Developer Open Source Innovation Group Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) shuahkh at osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] selftests/lib.mk: fix INSTALL_RULE 2015-05-12 22:02 ` Shuah Khan @ 2015-05-12 22:04 ` Tyler Baker 2015-05-12 22:07 ` Shuah Khan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Tyler Baker @ 2015-05-12 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 12 May 2015 at 15:02, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote: > On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, tyler.baker at linaro.org wrote: >> From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> > > This is odd. Did you use git send-email to send the patches? Yes I did. > > -- Shuah >> >> This patch fixes the INSTALL_RULE to gracefully handle the case where >> TEST_PROGS and TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED and TEST_FILES are not set. In this case, >> install is called without any SOURCE arguments causing make install to fail. >> The proposed fix is to loop over the items in these variables and only call >> install if there is a test artifact present. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 6 ++++-- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk >> index ee412ba..89dd785f 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk >> @@ -13,10 +13,12 @@ run_tests: all >> >> define INSTALL_RULE >> mkdir -p $(INSTALL_PATH) >> - @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do\ >> + @for TEST_DIR in $(TEST_DIRS); do \ >> cp -r $$TEST_DIR $(INSTALL_PATH); \ >> done; >> - install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES) >> + @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \ >> + install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \ >> + done; >> endef >> >> install: all >> > > > -- > Shuah Khan > Sr. Linux Kernel Developer > Open Source Innovation Group > Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) > shuahkh at osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978 -- Tyler Baker Tech Lead, LAVA Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] selftests/lib.mk: fix INSTALL_RULE 2015-05-12 22:04 ` Tyler Baker @ 2015-05-12 22:07 ` Shuah Khan 2015-05-12 22:41 ` Tyler Baker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Shuah Khan @ 2015-05-12 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 05/12/2015 04:04 PM, Tyler Baker wrote: > On 12 May 2015 at 15:02, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote: >> On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, tyler.baker at linaro.org wrote: >>> From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> >> >> This is odd. Did you use git send-email to send the patches? > > Yes I did. > No need to resend. I will try to apply them. Check your .gitconfig. The extra From is odd. -- Shuah -- Shuah Khan Sr. Linux Kernel Developer Open Source Innovation Group Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) shuahkh at osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] selftests/lib.mk: fix INSTALL_RULE 2015-05-12 22:07 ` Shuah Khan @ 2015-05-12 22:41 ` Tyler Baker 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Tyler Baker @ 2015-05-12 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 12 May 2015 at 15:07, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote: > On 05/12/2015 04:04 PM, Tyler Baker wrote: >> On 12 May 2015 at 15:02, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote: >>> On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, tyler.baker at linaro.org wrote: >>>> From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> >>> >>> This is odd. Did you use git send-email to send the patches? >> >> Yes I did. >> > > No need to resend. I will try to apply them. Check your .gitconfig. > The extra From is odd. Sorry about that, not sure why this has happened. I'll investigate on my end. Thanks. > > -- Shuah > > -- > Shuah Khan > Sr. Linux Kernel Developer > Open Source Innovation Group > Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) > shuahkh at osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978 -- Tyler Baker Tech Lead, LAVA Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built 2015-05-12 21:59 [PATCH 0/2] selftests: installation fixes tyler.baker at linaro.org 2015-05-12 21:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] selftests/lib.mk: fix INSTALL_RULE tyler.baker at linaro.org @ 2015-05-12 21:59 ` tyler.baker at linaro.org 2015-05-13 21:41 ` Shuah Khan 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: tyler.baker at linaro.org @ 2015-05-12 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> Set TEST_PROGS only when a build has occurred. Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> --- tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile index 1822356..54cc3e7 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile @@ -12,12 +12,11 @@ endif all: ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) gcc breakpoint_test.c -o breakpoint_test + TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test else echo "Not an x86 target, can't build breakpoints selftests" endif -TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test - include ../lib.mk clean: -- 2.1.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built 2015-05-12 21:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built tyler.baker at linaro.org @ 2015-05-13 21:41 ` Shuah Khan 2015-05-14 14:15 ` Tyler Baker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Shuah Khan @ 2015-05-13 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, tyler.baker at linaro.org wrote: > From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> > > Set TEST_PROGS only when a build has occurred. > > Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile > index 1822356..54cc3e7 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile > @@ -12,12 +12,11 @@ endif > all: > ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) > gcc breakpoint_test.c -o breakpoint_test > + TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test > else > echo "Not an x86 target, can't build breakpoints selftests" > endif > > -TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test > - > include ../lib.mk > > clean: > Hmm. With this change install fails to copy breakpoint_test all together. Remember setting TEST_PROGS in compile step makes it not stick around when install target is called. A better approach would be the following: if [ -f breakpoint_test ] TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test fi include ../lib.mk -- Shuah -- Shuah Khan Sr. Linux Kernel Developer Open Source Innovation Group Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) shuahkh at osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built 2015-05-13 21:41 ` Shuah Khan @ 2015-05-14 14:15 ` Tyler Baker 2015-05-14 15:27 ` Shuah Khan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Tyler Baker @ 2015-05-14 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 13 May 2015 at 14:41, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote: > On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, tyler.baker at linaro.org wrote: >> From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> >> >> Set TEST_PROGS only when a build has occurred. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile >> index 1822356..54cc3e7 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile >> @@ -12,12 +12,11 @@ endif >> all: >> ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) >> gcc breakpoint_test.c -o breakpoint_test >> + TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test >> else >> echo "Not an x86 target, can't build breakpoints selftests" >> endif >> >> -TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test >> - >> include ../lib.mk >> >> clean: >> > > Hmm. With this change install fails to copy breakpoint_test all > together. Remember setting TEST_PROGS in compile step makes it > not stick around when install target is called. A better approach > would be the following: > > if [ -f breakpoint_test ] > TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test > fi Thanks for pointing this out, this is a good catch. We will also need to do this for the x86 tests IIRC. Would it make more sense to have this check performed in the INSTALL_RULE so that we don't have to have a bunch of IF statements in the various Makefiles? Something like... @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \ if [ -f $$ARTIFACT ]; then \ install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \ fi; \ done; > > include ../lib.mk > > -- Shuah > > -- > Shuah Khan > Sr. Linux Kernel Developer > Open Source Innovation Group > Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) > shuahkh at osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978 Cheers, Tyler ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built 2015-05-14 14:15 ` Tyler Baker @ 2015-05-14 15:27 ` Shuah Khan 2015-05-14 17:11 ` Tyler Baker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Shuah Khan @ 2015-05-14 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 05/14/2015 08:15 AM, Tyler Baker wrote: > On 13 May 2015 at 14:41, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote: >> On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, tyler.baker at linaro.org wrote: >>> From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> >>> >>> Set TEST_PROGS only when a build has occurred. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +-- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile >>> index 1822356..54cc3e7 100644 >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile >>> @@ -12,12 +12,11 @@ endif >>> all: >>> ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) >>> gcc breakpoint_test.c -o breakpoint_test >>> + TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test >>> else >>> echo "Not an x86 target, can't build breakpoints selftests" >>> endif >>> >>> -TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test >>> - >>> include ../lib.mk >>> >>> clean: >>> >> >> Hmm. With this change install fails to copy breakpoint_test all >> together. Remember setting TEST_PROGS in compile step makes it >> not stick around when install target is called. A better approach >> would be the following: >> >> if [ -f breakpoint_test ] >> TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test >> fi > > Thanks for pointing this out, this is a good catch. We will also need > to do this for the x86 tests IIRC. Would it make more sense to have > this check performed in the INSTALL_RULE so that we don't have to have > a bunch of IF statements in the various Makefiles? Right. x86 will need this type of logic for 32-bit execs when they aren't not built on a 64-bit system, and for 64-bit execs when they aren't built on a 32-bit system. > > Something like... > > @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \ > if [ -f $$ARTIFACT ]; then \ > install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \ > fi; \ > done; > I think it makes perfect sense to do this in INSTALL_RULE. As you said, this will avoid changes to test individual Makefiles and new test writers don't have to worry about adding this. Would you like make the necessary changes? thanks, -- Shuah -- Shuah Khan Sr. Linux Kernel Developer Open Source Innovation Group Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) shuahkh at osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built 2015-05-14 15:27 ` Shuah Khan @ 2015-05-14 17:11 ` Tyler Baker 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Tyler Baker @ 2015-05-14 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 14 May 2015 at 08:27, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote: > On 05/14/2015 08:15 AM, Tyler Baker wrote: >> On 13 May 2015 at 14:41, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote: >>> On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, tyler.baker at linaro.org wrote: >>>> From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> Set TEST_PROGS only when a build has occurred. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +-- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile >>>> index 1822356..54cc3e7 100644 >>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile >>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile >>>> @@ -12,12 +12,11 @@ endif >>>> all: >>>> ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) >>>> gcc breakpoint_test.c -o breakpoint_test >>>> + TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test >>>> else >>>> echo "Not an x86 target, can't build breakpoints selftests" >>>> endif >>>> >>>> -TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test >>>> - >>>> include ../lib.mk >>>> >>>> clean: >>>> >>> >>> Hmm. With this change install fails to copy breakpoint_test all >>> together. Remember setting TEST_PROGS in compile step makes it >>> not stick around when install target is called. A better approach >>> would be the following: >>> >>> if [ -f breakpoint_test ] >>> TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test >>> fi >> >> Thanks for pointing this out, this is a good catch. We will also need >> to do this for the x86 tests IIRC. Would it make more sense to have >> this check performed in the INSTALL_RULE so that we don't have to have >> a bunch of IF statements in the various Makefiles? > > Right. x86 will need this type of logic for 32-bit execs when they > aren't not built on a 64-bit system, and for 64-bit execs when they > aren't built on a 32-bit system. Considering the change below we can now simplify this case for x86 to: diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile index 12d8e76..3e238d0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/Makefile @@ -14,13 +14,9 @@ UNAME_M := $(shell uname -m) ifeq ($(CROSS_COMPILE),) # Always build 32-bit tests all: all_32 -# Install 32-bit tests -TEST_PROGS += $(BINARIES_32) run_x86_tests.sh # If we're on a 64-bit host, build 64-bit tests as well ifeq ($(UNAME_M),x86_64) all: all_64 -# Install 64-bit tests -TEST_PROGS += $(BINARIES_64) endif endif @@ -28,6 +24,9 @@ all_32: check_build32 $(BINARIES_32) all_64: $(BINARIES_64) +# Install the tests +TEST_PROGS := $(BINARIES_32) $(BINARIES_64) run_x86_tests.sh + include ../lib.mk clean: If the binaries do not exist, they will be not be installed. If you and Andy are ok with this, I'll add a patch to this series. > >> >> Something like... >> >> @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \ >> if [ -f $$ARTIFACT ]; then \ >> install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \ >> fi; \ >> done; >> > > I think it makes perfect sense to do this in INSTALL_RULE. > As you said, this will avoid changes to test individual > Makefiles and new test writers don't have to worry about > adding this. > > Would you like make the necessary changes? Sure, I'll add this in the next revision. > > thanks, > -- Shuah > > > -- > Shuah Khan > Sr. Linux Kernel Developer > Open Source Innovation Group > Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) > shuahkh at osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978 Cheers, Tyler ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-05-14 17:11 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-05-12 21:59 [PATCH 0/2] selftests: installation fixes tyler.baker at linaro.org 2015-05-12 21:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] selftests/lib.mk: fix INSTALL_RULE tyler.baker at linaro.org 2015-05-12 22:02 ` Shuah Khan 2015-05-12 22:04 ` Tyler Baker 2015-05-12 22:07 ` Shuah Khan 2015-05-12 22:41 ` Tyler Baker 2015-05-12 21:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built tyler.baker at linaro.org 2015-05-13 21:41 ` Shuah Khan 2015-05-14 14:15 ` Tyler Baker 2015-05-14 15:27 ` Shuah Khan 2015-05-14 17:11 ` Tyler Baker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).