lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/9] rcu: Control rcutorture startup from kernel boot parameters
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:38:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 01:49:32PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:27:59PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > From: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
> > >
> > > Currently, if rcutorture is built into the kernel, it must be manually
> > > started or started from an init script. This is inconvenient for
> > > automated KVM testing, where it is good to be able to fully control
> > > rcutorture execution from the kernel parameters. This patch therefore
> > > adds a module parameter named "rcutorture_runnable" that defaults
> > > to zero ("don't start automatically"), but which can be set to one
> > > to cause rcutorture to start up immediately during boot.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/rcutorture.c | 2 ++
> > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcutorture.c
> > > index 41802be..fd7a0e6 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcutorture.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcutorture.c
> > > @@ -164,6 +164,8 @@ static int stutter_pause_test;
> > > #define RCUTORTURE_RUNNABLE_INIT 0
> > > #endif
> > > int rcutorture_runnable = RCUTORTURE_RUNNABLE_INIT;
> > > +module_param(rcutorture_runnable, int, 0444);
> > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(rcutorture_runnable, "Start rcutorture at boot");
> >
> > Perhaps this should become a bool rather than an int, so that the kernel
> > would recognize various variations on the parameter value, such as "on"
> > or "true".
>
> I had a funny feeling that I would be needing other values to do things
> like say at what phase of boot the test was to start.
>
> But if no need for this sort of function appears in the next while, then
> switching to bool would indeed make a lot of sense.

Ah, fair enough.

- Josh Triplett


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-16 23:19    [W:0.194 / U:1.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site