[PATCH 12/12] test_fs: Add exfat tests

[Marek Vasut]

On 3/10/25 4:30 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 09:12:16PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> Add tests for the exfat filesystem. These tests are largely an
>> extension of the FS_GENERIC tests with the following notable
>> exceptions.
>>
>> The filesystem image for exfat tests is generated using combination
>> of exfatutils mkfs.exfat and python fattools. The fattols are capable
> 
> Did you mean "exfatprogs" and not "exfatutils" ? But we need to update
> tools/docker/Dockerfile to list the tool there.

It seems the CI container already has the tools in it ?

Where do I update the docker container, is that tools/docker/Dockerfile ?

>> of generating exfat filesystem images too, but this is not used, the
> 
> Presumably because "fattools mkfat" seems to have further external
> dependencies and so would be more of a pain to use.

I don't think it does, but I think we should stick to tools which will 
be in production systems as much as possible, and that is mkfs.exfat 
from exfatprogs . The fattools is only used here because mkfs.exfat 
cannot create an image from list of files.

[...]

>>   test/py/requirements.txt          |  1 +
>>   test/py/tests/fs_helper.py        |  8 ++++++--
>>   test/py/tests/test_fs/conftest.py | 20 +++++++++++---------
>>   test/py/tests/test_fs/test_ext.py | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>>   4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> We also need to update test/py/tests/test_fs/fstest_helpers.py to know
> to call fsck.exfat.

Fixed in V2, thanks.

> [snip]
>> @@ -64,6 +66,8 @@ def mk_fs(config, fs_type, size, prefix, src_dir=None, size_gran = 0x100000):
>>                   check_call(f'tune2fs -O ^metadata_csum {fs_img}', shell=True)
>>           elif fs_lnxtype == 'vfat' and src_dir:
>>               check_call(f'mcopy -i {fs_img} -vsmpQ {src_dir}/* ::/', shell=True)
>> +        elif fs_lnxtype == 'exfat' and src_dir:
>> +            check_call(f'fattools cp {src_dir}/* {fs_img}', shell=True)
>>           return fs_img
>>       except CalledProcessError:
>>           call(f'rm -f {fs_img}', shell=True)
> 
> A cleanup to use fattools in both cases would be nice, as a follow-up.
See above, I am not convinced we should go for fattools all across the 
board. Do you think we should ?