[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240604231829.16b49c8868d310bcdcd78cab@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 23:18:29 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>, LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Trace Kernel
<linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] tracing: Fix some selftest issues
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:57:46 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2024 23:20:47 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > The major conflict happens when the boot-time test cleans up the kprobe
> > events by
> >
> > dyn_events_release_all(&trace_kprobe_ops);
> >
> > And I removed it by [3/3] patch in this series :) because it does not
> > needed and not confirmed there is no other kprobe events when the test
> > starts. Also the warning message are redundant so I removed it by [2/3].
> >
> > So without this [1/3], if we apply [2/3] and [3/3], the problem will be
> > mitigated, but I think the root cause is that these modules are built-in.
>
> I'm OK with making them module only, but I don't see any selftests for
> sythetic events. I think they should have a boot up test as well. If we
> remove them, let's add something to test them at boot up. Then the boot up
> code could clean it up.
>
> Or change the test module to be a boot up test that cleans itself up if it
> is compiled in as not a module?
Yeah, I think we may need another test code for synthetic events, which
also triggering the synthetic events.
BTW, some these bootup tests can be ported on KUnit. Do you have a plan to
use KUnit?
Thank you,
>
> -- Steve
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists