Re: [PATCH] tests/vpci: install test

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 13.03.2023 11:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 03:32:41PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 10.03.2023 14:38, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:06:29PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 09.03.2023 17:58, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>>>> Introduce an install target, like it's used by other tests.  This
>>>>> allows running the test on the installed systems, which is easier than
>>>>> running it during the build phase when dealing with automated testing.
>>>>> Strictly speaking the vpci test doesn't require to be run on a Xen
>>>>> host currently, but that allows easier integration with logic that
>>>>> runs the rest of the tests.
>>>>
>>>> I accept that as a possible way of looking at things, but personally I
>>>> remain unconvinced of this model. To me what is installed should be of
>>>> value to users. If there was a properly separated directory where all
>>>> (and only) tests were put, I might agree with installing. (Nevertheless
>>>> this isn't an objection, merely a remark.)
>>>>
>>>>> While there also adjust the makefile to use $(RM), and rename the
>>>>> resulting binary to use a dash instead of an underscore (again to
>>>>> match the rest of the tests).
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the resulting test binary is now part of the distribution CC
>>>>> must be used instead of HOSTCC.
>>>>
>>>> This breaks the run: goal, doesn't it? If the new mode is wanted, I
>>>> think the two kinds of binaries (and rules) need separating (maybe a
>>>> way can be found to avoid duplicating the rules, which would seem
>>>> desirable).
>>>
>>> The run rule is not hooked up in any of the upper level makefile logic,
>>
>> What about the run-tests-% goal in the top level Makefile?
> 
> Urg, I wasn't aware of that target.  I assume just removing the `run`
> target from the vpci makefile would be an acceptable solution then.

I'm afraid I wouldn't view this as acceptable. I would very much like
to retain these run: goals, as I view it as important that such tests
be possible to run easily and right from the build area. What might be
acceptable to me is if ...

> It's still the user that needs to explicitly call run-tests-vpci, so
> it would better know that HOSTCC == CC before attempting that.

... the run: rune would be enclosed in "ifeq ($(CC),$(HOSTCC))". Yet
even that is fragile. For tests like this I view it as secondary to
be runnable on the destination architecture, and hence I continue to
think that if installing such tests is really wanted, binaries for
host and target should be properly separated.

Jan