[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/8] fs/fat: cleanups + readdir implementation

[Rob Clark]

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 05:50:39PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 06:45:20AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >
>> >> Introduce directory traversal iterators, and implement fs_readdir()
>> >> which is needed by EFI_LOADER.
>> >>
>> >> The part re-working fat.c to use the directory iterators itself is
>> >> nearly a 2:1 negative diffstat, and a pretty big cleanup.  I fixed
>> >> one or two other small issues along the way.  It hasn't really been
>> >> tested with a wide variaty of different fat filesystems (if someone
>> >> has a collection of disk images to test with somewhere, let me know),
>> >> but it seems at least not worse than what it is replacing.
>> >
>> > Did you run test/fs/fs-test.sh and confirm there's at least no
>> > regressions?  Thanks!
>>
>> I've been having trouble getting fs-test.sh to pass even without my
>> changes, so no..
>
> Pass, or provide expected results?  From the script, we expect:
> # Total Summary: TOTAL PASS: 132 TOTAL FAIL: 6

Ok, I was missing special case handling for the "partition is whole
disk" case (which I *guess* is only a sandbox thing?).. but with that
fixed (and excluding the ext4 tests which have unrelated problems on
my setup):

Total Summary: TOTAL PASS: 63 TOTAL FAIL: 6

So if the 6 failed fat tests (below) are "normal", then I guess we're
good.. I'll post a v2 shortly.

** Start sandbox/test/fs/fs-test.nonfs.fat.out_clean
FAIL - TC12: 1MB write to . - write denied
FAIL - TC13: 1MB read from ./1MB.file.w2 - content verified
FAIL - TC13: 1MB read from 1MB.file.w2 - content verified

** Start sandbox/test/fs/fs-test.fs.fat.out_clean
FAIL - TC12: 1MB write to . - write denied
FAIL - TC13: 1MB read from ./1MB.file.w2 - content verified
FAIL - TC13: 1MB read from 1MB.file.w2 - content verified


BR,
-R

>> Not entirely sure if I have newer kernel/etc compared to the last
>> person who ran fs-test.sh, or if there is something on u-boot side
>> which changed without corresponding change in fs-test.sh.
>
> Note that this script it part of my
> everything-my-lab-isn't-giving-me-fits loop.  I'm probably going to
> split that loop into pure-SW and HW, as the HW part is what's driving me
> crazy most of the time.
>
> --
> Tom