2016-06-14 11:33, Jan Viktorin: > Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote: > > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_APP_TEST_RESOURCE_TAR),y) > > +$(eval $(call linked_tar_resource,test_resource_tar,test_resource.c)) > > +SRCS-y += test_pci.c > > +$(eval $(call linked_tar_resource,test_pci_sysfs,test_pci_sysfs)) > > +LDLIBS += -larchive > > +endif > > I don't like this very much. I think, the linked_tar_resource can be > disabled at the place of its definition. What about: > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_APP_TEST_RESOURCE_TAR),y) > define linked_tar_resource > ... > endef > else > linked_tar_resource = > endif > > ... > > SRCS-$(CONFIG_RTE_APP_TEST_RESOURCE_TAR) += test_pci.c > > ... > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_APP_TEST_RESOURCE_TAR),y) > LDLIBS += -larchive > endif
Yes, that's better. > > --- a/app/test/test_mp_secondary.c > > +++ b/app/test/test_mp_secondary.c > > @@ -245,6 +245,7 @@ run_object_creation_tests(void) > > printf("# Checked rte_lpm_create() OK\n"); > > #endif > > > > +#ifdef RTE_APP_TEST_RESOURCE_TAR > > /* Run a test_pci call */ > > if (test_pci() != 0) { > > printf("PCI scan failed in secondary\n"); > > @@ -252,6 +253,7 @@ run_object_creation_tests(void) > > return -1; > > } else > > printf("PCI scan succeeded in secondary\n"); > > +#endif > > Is it right to call a test from another test? I think this is > wrong... A user should first test the PCI and then the mp_seconday... > Or? :) This is out of scope for this patch. Yes this is a part of app/test/ which could be improved a lot. We don't even have a maintainer for the autotest architecture.