Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 26 May 2022 18:14:23 +0800 | From | Leo Yan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf test: Shell - only run .sh shell files to skip other files |
| |
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 05:21:27PM +0100, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On 4/10/22 03:28, Leo Yan wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 12:28:58PM +0000, carsten.haitzler@foss.arm.com wrote: > > > From: Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@arm.com> > > > > > > You edit your scripts in the tests and end up with your usual shell > > > backup files with ~ or .bak or something else at the end, but then your > > > next perf test run wants to run the backups too. You might also have perf > > > .data files in the directory or something else undesireable as well. You end > > > up chasing which test is the one you edited and the backup and have to keep > > > removing all the backup files, so automatically skip any files that are > > > not plain *.sh scripts to limit the time wasted in chasing ghosts. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@arm.com> > > > > > > --- > > > tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c | 17 +++++++++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c > > > index 3c34cb766724..3a02ba7a7a89 100644 > > > --- a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c > > > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c > > > @@ -296,9 +296,22 @@ static const char *shell_test__description(char *description, size_t size, > > > #define for_each_shell_test(entlist, nr, base, ent) \ > > > for (int __i = 0; __i < nr && (ent = entlist[__i]); __i++) \ > > > - if (!is_directory(base, ent) && \ > > > + if (ent->d_name[0] != '.' && \ > > > + !is_directory(base, ent) && \ > > > is_executable_file(base, ent) && \ > > > - ent->d_name[0] != '.') > > > + is_shell_script(ent->d_name)) > > > > Just nitpick: since multiple conditions are added, seems to me it's good > > to use a single function is_executable_shell_script() to make decision > > if a file is an executable shell script. > > I'd certainly make a function if this was being re-used, but as the "coding > pattern" was to do all the tests already inside the if() in only one place, > I kept with the style there and didn't change the code that didn't need > changing. I can rewrite this code and basically make a function that is just > an if ...: > > bool is_exe_shell_script(const char *base, struct dirent *ent) { > return ent->d_name[0] != '.' && !is_directory(base, ent) && > is_executable_file(base, ent) && is_shell_script(ent->d_name); > } > > And macro becomes: > > #define for_each_shell_test(entlist, nr, base, ent) \ > for (int __i = 0; __i < nr && (ent = entlist[__i]); __i++) \ > if (is_shell(base, ent))
Sorry for long latency.
If the condition checking gets complex, seems to me it is reasonable to use a static function (or a macro?) to encapsulate the logics.
> But one catch... it really should be is_non_hidden_exe_shell_script() as > it's checking that it's not a hidden file AND is a shell script. Or do I > keep the hidden file test outside of the function in the if? If we're nit > picking then I need to know exactly what you want here as your suggested > name is actually incorrect.
I personally prefer to use the condition:
if (is_exe_shell_script() && ent->d_name[0] != '.') do_something...
The reason is the function is_exe_shell_script() is more common and we use it easily in wider scope.
> > And the condition checking 'ent->d_name[0] != '.'' would be redundant > > after we have checked the file suffix '.sh'. > > This isn't actually redundant. You can have .something.sh :) If the idea is > we skip anything with a . at the start first always... then the if (to me) > is obvious.
Yeah, I agree the checking the start char '.' is the right thing to do.
Thanks, Leo
|  |