(2014/08/28 0:54), Luis Henriques wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not really a complete review, but just 2 comments on this script:
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:15:18AM +0000, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> ...
>> +prlog() { # messages
>> + echo $@ | tee -a $LOG_FILE
>> +}
>> +catlog() { #file
>> + cat $1 | tee -a $LOG_FILE
>> +}
>> +
>> +# Testcase management
>> +PASSED_CASES=
>> +FAILED_CASES=
>> +CASENO=0
>> +testcase() { # testfile
>> + CASENO=$((CASENO+1))
>> + prlog -n "[$CASENO]"`grep "^#[ \t]*description:" $1 | cut -f2 -d:`
>> +}
>> +failed() {
>> + prlog -e "\t[FAIL]"
>> + FAILED_CASES="$FAILED_CASES $CASENO"
>> +}
>> +passed() {
>> + prlog -e "\t[PASS]"
>> + PASSED_CASES="$PASSED_CASES $CASENO"
>> +}
>
> What I see here is a '-e' being echo'ed and not really a '-e' switch
> being used to 'echo'. (Also, I'm not sure if this is a standard
> switch...).
>
> This applies to all the other 'prlog -e'.
Oh, really? what shell did you use?
My target shell is the busybox and I've tested it on fedora20.
e.g. busybox echo command seems accept -e.
$ busybox echo -e '\tfoo'
foo
Of course maybe I'd better not use \t, but " "...
>> +
>> +
>> +# Run one test case
>> +run_test() { # testfile
>> + local testname=`basename $1`
>> + local testlog=`mktemp --tmpdir=$LOG_DIR ${testname}-XXXXXX.log`
>> + testcase $1
>> + echo "execute: "$1 > $testlog
>> + (cd $TRACING_DIR; set -x ; source $t) >> $testlog 2>&1
>> + ret=$?
>
> I believe the usage of 'source' is a bashism, and '.' should be used
> instead. In my environment, 'source' results in ret=127. Replacing
> it by '.' fixes it.
Ah, right. I missed that, I'll fix that :)
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
