-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
Are FILESYSTEM tests available with small targets ? #7407
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
@davidsaada |
@jeromecoutant This problem has been fixed in #7465. |
I am currently checking this result:
Thx |
Right. Indeed #7465 only dealt with BD tests, not with file system ones. Will need to open an additional PR for that. |
any update ? |
Sorry for not updating. Went over the FAT tests, and they seem to be quite hard to modify for this purpose. The current FAT tests require quite block devices on the one hand, but the format process only allocates small chunks of the memory on demand (which is really very FAT specific). Now, if we try to allocate the full size of the Heap Block Device in advance (to see if we have enough memory), the test will fail for all platforms (even the ones that can run the tests OK). Otherwise, we face the problem with the smaller devices. |
Hmm, could we find out how much RAM is used by the HeapBlockDevice after running the FAT tests and then use that as our threshhold (with some margin)? |
So, there will be no update for file system tests ? Should I push a PR with like this : #if defined(TARGET_xxx) [Mirrored to Jira] |
@jeromecoutant Sorry for not being responsive. On holiday vacation until 2.10. |
Internal Jira reference: https://jira.arm.com/browse/IOTSTOR-476 |
Hi |
@jeromecoutant I'm on it now. Didn't have too much time to handle this for 5.11, due to more prioritized issues. |
Description
Hi
I think some RAM size check should be included in features/tests/filesystem tests ?
Ex:
mbed test -t GCC_ARM -m NUCLEO_F070RB -v -n features-tests-filesystem-*
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------+--------------------+-------------+
| target | platform_name | test suite | result | elapsed_time (sec) | copy_method |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------+--------------------+-------------+
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-buffered_block_device | TIMEOUT | 46.31 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-fat_filesystem | TIMEOUT | 27.09 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-flashsim_block_device | FAIL | 15.67 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-heap_block_device | FAIL | 16.43 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-mbr_block_device | FAIL | 15.92 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-multipart_fat_filesystem | TIMEOUT | 27.65 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-util_block_device | TIMEOUT | 25.93 | default |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------+--------------------+-------------+
Issue request type
[ ] Question
[ ] Enhancement
[x] Bug
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: