On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:54:03PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On pe, 2016-10-07 at 10:38 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > The "change" to use bash just reflects current reality. All the changes
> > here look simple and sane, and immediately improve the results. The work
> > is already done, no use blocking them because someone might eventually
> > rewrite them in C. (And it will be a PITA to write the module reload
> > test in C, so I wouldn't hold my breath.)
> The scripts are really simple, most of the scripts even use POSIX sh
> compliant constructs but just the wrong shebang. And sometimes some a
> advanced bash feature here and there which could be replaced easily.
> > For the series,
> > Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>
> > PS. When I look at IGT and the macro/setjmp/longjmp magic to create the
> > test/subtest/fixture infrastructure, making the tests look like they've
> > been written in some extended version of C, I have to question whether C
> > really is the right language for the tests. libdrm python bindings and
> > python, anyone?
> My patches to convert away from bash were to allow running the tests in
> minimal initramfs environment where the kernel + IGT would be a
> standalone bzImage suitable for netbooting, but we can go to another
> direction too, and lets add Java as runtime requirement for I-G-T!
> Regards, Joonas
> <plaintext>I'm against converting to bash/python for no
Most of the bashisms seem to be simple cases of the superfluous
"function" in front of functions...
Kind regards, David
Intel-gfx mailing list