[PATCH] selftests/lib.mk: Move test output to diagnostic lines

From: shuah at kernel.org (shuah)
Subject: [PATCH] selftests/lib.mk: Move test output to diagnostic lines
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:56:10 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d0647ccf-b2a2-8fd4-adc4-16914b68ffbf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+_b-w+e_4rn1D5zH=KF_O=ktz-xV3hEFd1cqSmcWpWhQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/9/19 10:06 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 2:32 PM shuah <shuah at kernel.org> wrote:
>> Couple of things to consider:
>> - will this work on embedded test system with limited applications shell
>>     support?
> 
> I was assuming the availability of "stdbuf" which is part of
> coreutils, and "perl" which is already required for at least one other
> test (sysctl). What do you have in mind for the "maximum supported
> environment" (and where's best to document this)? Also, I see python
> is used by several tests. Should python be considered instead of perl?
> 
>> - It does add dependecy on perl for running tests - not a problem since
>>     kernel build system uses it, however it might not be the case when
>>     tests get run on system without perl.
> 
> I could likely rewrite the "prefix.pl" in C, and the test could use a
> built binary instead? Or in python (as noted above). Where are tests
> being run right now with such a limited environment?
> 

Some embedded systems as I recall with just busybox env. I am thinking
shell rather C/perl/python.

>> - there is the emit_tests support that creates a shell script that runs.
>>     The results format should stay the is same when tests get run using
>>     run_tests vs. tests are built and installed. Take a look at emit_tests
>>     and EMIT_TESTS in Makefile and lib.mk
> 
> Ah yeah. I will adjust EMIT_TESTS too.
> 
> Thanks!
> 

thanks,
-- Shuah