On 07/26, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Add ability to specify either test number or test name substring to
> narrow down a set of test to run.
>
> Usage:
> sudo ./test_progs -n 1
> sudo ./test_progs -t attach_probe
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andr...@fb.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> index eea88ba59225..6e04b9f83777 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> #include "test_progs.h"
> #include "bpf_rlimit.h"
> #include <argp.h>
> +#include <string.h>
>
> int error_cnt, pass_cnt;
> bool jit_enabled;
> @@ -164,6 +165,7 @@ void *spin_lock_thread(void *arg)
>
> struct prog_test_def {
> const char *test_name;
> + int test_num;
> void (*run_test)(void);
> };
>
> @@ -181,26 +183,49 @@ const char *argp_program_bug_address =
> "<b...@vger.kernel.org>";
> const char argp_program_doc[] = "BPF selftests test runner";
>
> enum ARG_KEYS {
> + ARG_TEST_NUM = 'n',
> + ARG_TEST_NAME = 't',
> ARG_VERIFIER_STATS = 's',
> };
>
> static const struct argp_option opts[] = {
> + { "num", ARG_TEST_NUM, "NUM", 0,
> + "Run test number NUM only " },
> + { "name", ARG_TEST_NAME, "NAME", 0,
> + "Run tests with names containing NAME" },
> { "verifier-stats", ARG_VERIFIER_STATS, NULL, 0,
> "Output verifier statistics", },
> {},
> };
>
> struct test_env {
> + int test_num_selector;
> + const char *test_name_selector;
> bool verifier_stats;
> };
>
> -static struct test_env env = {};
> +static struct test_env env = {
> + .test_num_selector = -1,
> +};
>
> static error_t parse_arg(int key, char *arg, struct argp_state *state)
> {
> struct test_env *env = state->input;
>
> switch (key) {
[..]
> + case ARG_TEST_NUM: {
> + int test_num;
> +
> + errno = 0;
> + test_num = strtol(arg, NULL, 10);
> + if (errno)
> + return -errno;
> + env->test_num_selector = test_num;
> + break;
> + }
Do you think it's really useful? I agree about running by name (I
usually used grep -v in the Makefile :-), but I'm not sure about running
by number.
Or is the idea is that you can just copy-paste this number from the
test_progs output to rerun the tests? In this case, why not copy-paste
the name instead?
> + case ARG_TEST_NAME:
> + env->test_name_selector = arg;
> + break;
> case ARG_VERIFIER_STATS:
> env->verifier_stats = true;
> break;
> @@ -223,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> .parser = parse_arg,
> .doc = argp_program_doc,
> };
> - const struct prog_test_def *def;
> + struct prog_test_def *test;
> int err, i;
>
> err = argp_parse(&argp, argc, argv, 0, NULL, &env);
> @@ -237,8 +262,18 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> verifier_stats = env.verifier_stats;
>
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(prog_test_defs); i++) {
> - def = &prog_test_defs[i];
> - def->run_test();
> + test = &prog_test_defs[i];
> +
> + test->test_num = i + 1;
> +
> + if (env.test_num_selector >= 0 &&
> + test->test_num != env.test_num_selector)
> + continue;
> + if (env.test_name_selector &&
> + !strstr(test->test_name, env.test_name_selector))
> + continue;
> +
> + test->run_test();
> }
>
> printf("Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED\n", pass_cnt, error_cnt);
> --
> 2.17.1
>
