[PATCH 12/12] test_fs: Add exfat tests

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 09:37:36PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> 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 ?

Implicitly and not explicitly then.

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

Yes, thanks.

> > > 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.

Well, I tried "fattools mkfs.exfat" and it wanted tkinter to be
installed, so that's why I'd not bother with it.

> [...]
> 
> > >   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 ?

In that we can't drop dosfsutils entirely, it's not a big deal either
way.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20250310/0de6b6cc/attachment.sig>