[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] Use SAFE_RUNCMD()

[Li Wang]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:57 AM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:

> Hi!
> > > Also if we are going to add this functionality it should be added as an
> > > .needs_cmds array in the tst_test structure.
> > .needs_cmds sounds as a good idea. But let's do it as a separate effort.
>
+1, thanks Petr!


> > I'll leave already sent v2 for review. Once .needs_cmds is implemented,
> we can
> > use it as well for copy_file_range02.c.
>
> Actually I would like to avoid exposing the function to the tests and
> force people to use the .needs_cmds instead in order to have a proper
> metadata.
>

Sounds good.

And this makes me think more of the '.request_hugepages' story. The
needs_foo flags require the foo to be present on the system as hard
requirements. In some situations(i.e copy_file_range02.c), we probably need
to handle the soft situation, which means, the commands are only part of
the test requirement. So if it writing with .needs_cmds="xxx", it might
skip the whole test in setup() phase.

So things are clear now, checking for the command existence in
tst_run_cmd_fds_() is really necessary. For the test with "cmds" is needed
just adding the .needs_cmds="xxx", for the test with "cmds" is only part of
it, we can avoid writing '.needs_cmds' but calling tst_run_cmd() function
directly.

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20200325/6968ec47/attachment-0001.htm>