From: Michael Petlan [mailto:mpet...@redhat.com] > >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.
Yeah, I agreed, and perf-probe definitely needs it :) I hope that this is included into the kernel tree so that it can be synchronously evolving with perf itself. Thanks! > >> - Arnaldo > >Regards, >Michael > > >
