On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 16:53 -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > Previously CXL event testing was run by hand. This reduces testing
Reduces or increases / improves? Or did you mean running by hand reduced coverage. Maybe this can read "Improve testing coverage and address a lack of automated regression testing by adding a unit test for this" (no need to respin, I can fixup when applying, just making sure I'm not misinterpreting what you meant to say). > coverage including a lack of regression testing. > > Add a CXL event test as part of the meson test infrastructure. Passing > is predicated on receiving the appropriate number of errors in each log. > Individual event values are not checked. > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com> > --- > Changes in v2: > [djiang] run shellcheck and fix as needed > > [vishal] quote variables > > [vishal] skip test if event_trigger is not available > > [vishal] remove dead code > > [vishal] explicitly use the first memdev returned from cxl-cli > > [vishal] store trace output in a variable > > [vishal] simplify grep statement looking for results > > [vishal] use variables for expected values > > - Link to v1: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230726-cxl-event-v1-1-1cf8cb02b...@intel.com > --- > test/cxl-events.sh | 76 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > test/meson.build | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 78 insertions(+) > Thanks for the rev, everything else looks good.
