From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Glass Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 09:17:17 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 7/8] x86: efi: Add a hello world test program In-Reply-To: <303040d6-1394-fa83-6836-316f7725ef78@suse.de> References: <1476757754-1220-1-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> <1476757754-1220-7-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> <5805CBE5.8050509@suse.de> <303040d6-1394-fa83-6836-316f7725ef78@suse.de> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Alex, On 7 November 2016 at 09:32, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 07/11/2016 10:46, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> On 19 October 2016 at 01:09, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18/10/2016 22:37, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alex, >>>> >>>> On 18 October 2016 at 01:14, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 10/18/2016 04:29 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is useful to have a basic sanity check for EFI loader support. Add >>>>>> a >>>>>> 'bootefi hello' command which loads HelloWord.efi and runs it under >>>>>> U-Boot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes in v3: >>>>>> - Include a link to the program instead of adding it to the tree >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, uh, where is the link? >>>> >>>> >>>> I put it in the README (see the arm patch). >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm really not convinced this command buys us anything yet. I do agree >>>>> that >>>>> we want automated testing - but can't we get that using QEMU and a >>>>> downloadable image file that we pass in as disk and have the distro >>>>> boot do >>>>> its magic? >>>> >>>> >>>> That seems very heavyweight as a sanity check, although I agree it is >>>> useful. >>> >>> >>> It's not really much more heavy weight. The "image file" could simply >>> contain your hello world binary. But with this we don't just verify >>> whether "bootefi" works, but also whether the default boot path works ok. >> >> >> I don't think I understand what you mean by 'image file'. Is it >> something other than the .efi file? Do you mean a disk image? > > > Yes. For reasonable test coverage, we should also verify that the distro > defaults wrote a sane boot script that automatically searches for a default > EFI binary in /efi/boot/bootx86.efi on the first partition of all devices > and runs it. > > So if we just provide an SD card image or hard disk image to QEMU which > contains a hello world .efi binary as that default boot file, we don't only > test whether the "bootefi" command works, but also whether the distro boot > script works. That's right. > >> >>> >>>> Here I am just making sure that EFI programs can start, print output >>>> and exit. It is a test that we can easily run without a lot of >>>> overhead, much less than a full distro boot. >>> >>> >>> Again, I don't think it's much more overhead and I do believe it gives >>> us much cleaner separation between responsibilities of code (tests go >>> where tests are). >> >> >> You are talking about a functional test, something that tests things >> end to end. I prefer to at least start with a smaller test. Granted it >> takes a little more work but it means there are fewer things to hunt >> through when something goes wrong. > > > Yes, I personally find unit tests terribly annoying and unproductive and > functional tests very helpful :). And in this case, the effort to write it > is about the same for both, just that the functional test actually tells you > that things work or don't work at the end of the day. > > With a code base like U-Boot, a simple functional test like the above plus > git bisect should get you to an offending patch very quickly. This is not a unit test - in fact the EFI stuff has no unit tests. I suppose if we are trying to find a name this is a small functional test since it exercises the general functionality. I am much keener on small tests than large ones for finding simple bugs. Of course you can generally bisect to find a bug, but the more layers of software you need to look for the harder this is. We could definitely use a pytest which checks an EFI boot into an image, but I don't think this obviates the need for a smaller targeted test like this one. Regards, Simon