* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@ghostprotocols.net> wrote:
> Em Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:00:31AM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
>
> > tools/perf/util/test-attr.c | 142
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > tools/perf/util/test-attr.py | 272
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > tools/perf/util/test-attr/base-record | 39 ++++++++
>
> I suggest we move all this to:
>
> tools/perf/tests/attr/
Yes!
I'd even strongly suggest increasing perf test's prominence
within the project: if the tests are quick enough to run we
could run them during the build of perf and warn if perf test
fails in an unexpected way with the new perf binary.
( Running new perf on older kernel should never cause an
unexpected failure and thus a build warning. )
So as people are working on new perf patches, the default build
will run perf test and will catch some errors. As the number of
testcases grows it might catch a wide range of bugs. It will
also help us find regressions sooner, when users/testers build
perf they'll always run perf test as well and report new
warnings/failures.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
