[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130814141301.GA2138@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:13:01 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
To: Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: perf, tools: Move gtk browser into separate perfgtk
executable
Em Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:57:16PM -0400, Vince Weaver escreveu:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > that can only be addressed by either extending 'perf test' or by testing
> > libpfm et al sooner. The upstream kernel can only address regressions that
> > get reported.
> Most of the tests in my test-suite are reactive. Meaning, I wrote them
> after an ABI-breaking change was reported elsewhere, and I needed a small
> test case for bisection purposes. Thus they are good for finding if a
> corner of the perf ABI re-breaks but they're not great at spotting new
> breakages.
> Writing a complete test suite for something as complicated as the
> perf-event ABI is impractical. One thing you can do is require anyone
> submitting new functionality also provide a regression test, but
Agreed.
> I don't see that happening.
See some of Namhyung, Adrian and Jiri recent patchsets, they came with
'perf test' regression tests.
- ARnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists