[PATCH v2 11/11] test_fs: Add exfat tests

[Marek Vasut]

On 3/14/25 3:27 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 08:13:27PM +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 exfatprogs mkfs.exfat and python fattools. The fattols are capable
>> of generating exfat filesystem images too, but this is not used, the
>> fattools are only used as a replacement for dosfstools 'mcopy' and
>> 'mdir', which are used to insert files and directories into existing
>> fatfs images and list existing fatfs images respectively, without the
>> need for superuser access to mount such images.
>>
>> The exfat filesystem has no filesystem specific command, there is only
>> the generic filesystem command interface, therefore check_ubconfig()
>> has to special case exfat and skip check for CONFIG_CMD_EXFAT and
>> instead check for CONFIG_FS_EXFAT.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
>> ---
> [snip]
>> diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_fs/fstest_helpers.py b/test/py/tests/test_fs/fstest_helpers.py
>> index c1447b4d43e..8f2e1fcf47d 100644
>> --- a/test/py/tests/test_fs/fstest_helpers.py
>> +++ b/test/py/tests/test_fs/fstest_helpers.py
>> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ def assert_fs_integrity(fs_type, fs_img):
>>       try:
>>           if fs_type == 'ext4':
>>               check_call('fsck.ext4 -n -f %s' % fs_img, shell=True)
>> +        if fs_type == 'exfat':
>> +            check_call('fsck.exfat -n %s' % fs_img, shell=True)
>>           elif fs_type in ['fat12', 'fat16', 'fat32']:
>>               check_call('fsck.fat -n %s' % fs_img, shell=True)
>>       except CalledProcessError:
> 
> This should be elif not if? Not a big deal if there's nothing else
> needing a v3 however. Everything else looks good, thanks.
Yes, it should be elif . Unfortunately, there is now a clean up change 
in next which modifies test/py/tests/test_fs/test_basic.py and conflicts 
badly with 3/11 in this series, so I need to carefully rebase that patch 
on top of current next. I'll send V3 once it is done.