linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf test: Test FASYNC with watermark wakeups.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZdjhNG1T6j6miiYg@x1>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 15:17:24 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>, Kyle Huey <khuey@...ehuey.com>,
	Robert O'Callahan <robert@...llahan.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf test: Test FASYNC with watermark wakeups.

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:01:31AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 9:35 AM Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com> wrote:
> > I think perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here. This seems like a
> > ton of work just to write a regression test. Maybe I should be doing
> > this in tools/testing/selftests instead?
 
> The problem is detecting support for the feature in the kernel. The
> BTF approach isn't that bad, a couple of finds, but I think in this
> case there isn't anything to be found to indicate the feature is
> present. I like the perf test as perf tests are a form of
> documentation. Perhaps just using TEST_SKIP here (rather than
> TEST_FAIL) is best and the skip_reason can be a presumed lack of
> kernel support.

But going forward the general expectation is that it should pass as
the feature _is_ present, isn't it?

- Arnaldo