[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adcb2f0e-9db1-dd5a-91dd-6f5567357174@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 16:41:51 +0200
From: Georg Müller <georgmueller@....net>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] perf probe: add test for regression introduced by
switch to die_get_decl_file
Am 27.07.23 um 19:45 schrieb Ian Rogers:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 1:25 AM Georg Müller <georgmueller@....net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the test Georg! By directly relying on gcc this test fails
> for me in some constrained environments, like containers. I think
> there should be a skip if gcc isn't present. A different option is to
> just build the test code into the perf binary itself as a test
> workload:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/tests/workloads?h=perf-tools-next
>
> Wdyt? Thanks,
> Ian
>
I prepare a commit which checks for gcc and skips the test in this case.
I think building thi test code into the perf binary itself is not an option
here, since the test relies on a special setup of using -flto for one of the
compilation units.
There is also a cleanup issue if anything fails. This will be included in
the patch as well.
Best regards,
Georg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists