lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] RFC: perf, tools: Move gtk browser into separate perfgtk executable
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> that can only be addressed by either extending 'perf test' or by testing
> libpfm et al sooner. The upstream kernel can only address regressions that
> get reported.

Most of the tests in my test-suite are reactive. Meaning, I wrote them
after an ABI-breaking change was reported elsewhere, and I needed a small
test case for bisection purposes. Thus they are good for finding if a
corner of the perf ABI re-breaks but they're not great at spotting new
breakages.

Writing a complete test suite for something as complicated as the
perf-event ABI is impractical. One thing you can do is require anyone
submitting new functionality also provide a regression test, but
I don't see that happening.

Another issue is that despite having some ABI definitions for files in
/sys, these are broken with impunity. And I've yet to have an
ABI-breaking changeset reverted based on my bug reports. So you can see
why I'm not really motivated to even bother trying, as it seems like it
would be pointless busy work at this point.

It would just be nice if we just straight out say "the ABI is whatever
lets the perf tool run. Anything else is undefined behavior and shouldn't
be relied on".

Vince


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-14 00:21    [W:9.213 / U:1.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site