On Tuesday, March 30, 2021, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:41:15PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:52:12PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 at 03:56, Andy Shevchenko <
andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:46 AM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 07:40, Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
When test suite tries to create a file for a new filesystem test
case and fails,
the clean up of the exception tries to unmount the image, that
has not yet been
mounted. When it happens, the fuse_mounted global variable is
set to False and
inconveniently the test case tries to use sudo, so without this
change the
admin of the machine gets an (annoying) email:
Subject: *** SECURITY information for example.com ***
example.com : Feb 5 19:43:47 : ... COMMAND=/bin/umount
.../build-sandbox/persistent-data/mnt
and second run of the test cases on uncleaned build folder will
ask for sudo
which is not what expected.
Besides that there is a double unmount calls during successfully
run test case.
All of these due to over engineered Python try-except clause and
people didn't
get it properly at all. The rule of thumb is that don't use more
keywords than
try-except in the exception handling code. Nevertheless, here we
adjust code
to be less intrusive to the initial logic behind that complex
and unclear
constructions in the test case, although it adds a lot of lines
of the code,
i.e. splits one exception handler to three, so on each step we
know what
cleanup shall perform.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.
intel.com>
v2: new patch test/py/tests/test_fs/conftest.py | 78
++++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
This looks OK to me, but there is a lot of duplication in the code, isn't there? Perhaps another forray?
Can we apply this fix as is and think about optimisations later,
please?
W/o this I'm really blocked from running tests against U-Boot.
'make qcheck' bypasses this.
+Heinrich Schuchardt
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Thanks!
Tom, I don't see this being applied. Can we actually get it in?
Does this apply cleanly to master? I thought only 1/4 did so I applied that.
Patches 2&3 are against Simon’s tree, patches 1&4 are against main branch
-- Tom