Hi Tom, On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 03:45, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 03:41:33AM +0000, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 16:35, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 03:04:28PM +0000, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 15:52, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 03:38:03PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Add an extlinux image that contains a few Ubuntu entries. > > > > > > > > > > > > Increase the number of sandbox-USB-hub ports to permit this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what this test adds. In neither the current Fedora > > > > > test nor in this new test are we actually booting something, we're > > > > > just > > > > > taking a sample extlinux.conf and making sure it doesn't fail. Is it > > > > > that we're testing in a useful fashion now having two labels? > > > > > > > > I didn't think so either, which is why I never did this before. But it > > > > turns out that there were some bugs, too. > > > > > > I don't understand you, sorry. You don't think so either to what? > > > > I didn't think we needed two extlinux examples on different boot > > devices, but we do. > > I'm not sure it's particularly clear what you're doing here then, or > why, but I'll find some time to read it all more deeply.
OK. This test case is how I found the bugs/problems in bootstd that are fixed in this series. > > > > > > We should probably be clear about what we're doing in the tests and > > > > > instead of adding seemingly arbitrary distributions add an extlinux > > > > > test > > > > > and testcases. > > > > > > > > This is not actually a test case. It is simply creating a new image. > > > > The test cases are in the other patches, so please take a look there. > > > > > > Nothing in this series quickly reads as adding tests and fixing problems > > > with extlinux parsing, it's all bootmeth stuff? > > > > It isn't about the actual parsing of the .conf file, although I would > > like to add tests there as we have none apart from what I have added > > in my PXE series. It's more about having multiple devices with > > bootable OSes on them. This series tidies up and fixes this. We need > > to have an image available on more than one device to spot these > > problems. > > And the existing tests for pxelinux that we have in mainline already, > don't forget those. Yes. But those tests actually don't use bootstd, do they? > > > Currently we have two accessible to sandbox, one extlinux and one > > EFI*. I decided to add a third, using extlinux. > > > > Again, this is not a test case, but provides an image for the test > > cases in this series. > > Adding mocked up things for use in sandbox is adding test cases. One is a test image for use by tests; the other is a test. Perhaps you are just saying that there is no point in having one without the other? Otherwise, I'm not sure what to do with this feedback. Regards, Simon
