On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 02:25:43PM +0100, Michael Petlan wrote: > On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 16:16 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > I have met this when writing new tests for perf-probe into the testsuite > > > I had been speaking about some time ago [1]. But if needed, I may add it > > > as a perf-test entry as you wish. > > > > Please :-) > > > > Hi, > > after a short discussion with Jiri Olsa I think that perf-test entry is > not an ideal way to add a testcase such as this one. While perf-test > aims on testing internal functions, here you need to use multiple tools > in order to reproduce the issue: > > 1) build a custom C example > 2) add a userspace probe in the example > 3) record some perf.data of it > 4) analyze the perf.data by perf script > > So in order to have this testcase in perf.test we'd need to call all the > mentioned functionality within a C function. That's why I think that > better approach is to use the shell based tests that I am collecting in > my suite for now: > > > # for running the particular testcase for this issue you just need to: > git clone https://github.com/rfmvh/perftool-testsuite.git > cd perftool-testsuite/base_probe > ./setup.sh > ./test_advanced.sh > > > The overall approach of that testsuite is to test the tool as it is. So > both approaches are necessary; both testing of the internal functions by > perf-test and testing the tool as such from the outside by the suite. > I am not against extending perf-test set, but I don't think this is the > right case for it.
+1 ;-) also I remember discussion about having your test suite ported somewhere over perf sources.. is this still a plan? thanks, jirka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-perf-users" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
