Re: [PATCH 4/8] selftests/bpf: fix object files installation

From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] selftests/bpf: fix object files installation
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 15:30:19 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZN=cMSFtinNOHMkDhposYPeHqgtJSwnpFSnQ2bX8BfyA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200522041310.233185-5-yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com>

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:14 PM Yauheni Kaliuta
<yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> 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@redhat.com>
> ---
>  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?

>
>  # Evaluate rules now with extra TRUNNER_XXX variables above already defined
>  $$(eval $$(call DEFINE_TEST_RUNNER_RULES,$1,$2))
> --
> 2.26.2
>