[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180517175410.d23409d805581923bc456ec2@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 17:54:10 -0500
From: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] perf tests parse-events: Add intel_pt parse test
On Thu, 17 May 2018 22:58:11 +0200
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 05:15:53PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > So parse_state->error == NULL, Jiri, ideas?
>
> yep, we don't use it in tests.. and when trying intel_pt on
> system without that pmu, the parse_events_add_pmu fails
> and store the error to NULL.. we should check on that err pointer
>
> wrt to the test itself, how about we add callback
> to check if the test is valid before we run it,
> something like below
> jirka
That diff makes this test pass again on x86 without an intel_pt, and
on Arm32/64 (the intel_pt test gets skipped on those machines):
Tested-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>
Thanks,
Kim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists