On 3/10/25 4:30 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 09:12:16PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
Add tests for the exfat filesystem. These tests are largely an
extension of the FS_GENERIC tests with the following notable
exceptions.
The filesystem image for exfat tests is generated using combination
of exfatutils mkfs.exfat and python fattools. The fattols are capable
Did you mean "exfatprogs" and not "exfatutils" ? But we need to update
tools/docker/Dockerfile to list the tool there.
It seems the CI container already has the tools in it ?
Where do I update the docker container, is that tools/docker/Dockerfile ?
of generating exfat filesystem images too, but this is not used, the
Presumably because "fattools mkfat" seems to have further external
dependencies and so would be more of a pain to use.
I don't think it does, but I think we should stick to tools which will
be in production systems as much as possible, and that is mkfs.exfat
from exfatprogs . The fattools is only used here because mkfs.exfat
cannot create an image from list of files.
[...]
test/py/requirements.txt | 1 +
test/py/tests/fs_helper.py | 8 ++++++--
test/py/tests/test_fs/conftest.py | 20 +++++++++++---------
test/py/tests/test_fs/test_ext.py | 20 ++++++++++++++------
4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
We also need to update test/py/tests/test_fs/fstest_helpers.py to know
to call fsck.exfat.
Fixed in V2, thanks.
[snip]
@@ -64,6 +66,8 @@ def mk_fs(config, fs_type, size, prefix, src_dir=None,
size_gran = 0x100000):
check_call(f'tune2fs -O ^metadata_csum {fs_img}', shell=True)
elif fs_lnxtype == 'vfat' and src_dir:
check_call(f'mcopy -i {fs_img} -vsmpQ {src_dir}/* ::/',
shell=True)
+ elif fs_lnxtype == 'exfat' and src_dir:
+ check_call(f'fattools cp {src_dir}/* {fs_img}', shell=True)
return fs_img
except CalledProcessError:
call(f'rm -f {fs_img}', shell=True)
A cleanup to use fattools in both cases would be nice, as a follow-up.
See above, I am not convinced we should go for fattools all across the
board. Do you think we should ?
