Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:17:00 -0800 | From | Josh Triplett <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |