From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luiz Capitulino Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] cyclictest: improve running under trace-cmd Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:23:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20160316172321.7fbc829e@redhat.com> References: <1456417757-13444-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jkacur@redhat.com, williams@redhat.com To: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53665 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755493AbcCPVXZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:23:25 -0400 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C67B804E7 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:23:25 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1456417757-13444-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:29:13 -0500 Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > This is just a repost of my RFC posting with no changes. > I have tested it a bit more and I think it's good > for inclusion. ping? > > Original intro: > > In short, this series allows you to run cyclictest under > trace-cmd and still get trace marks when the latency > specified with -b is execeded. More details in patch 4/4. > > This series is RFC because I'm not completely sure this > is the right thing to do. I'm wondering if we shouldn't > ditch all tracing support from cyclictest... > > Luiz Capitulino (4): > cyclictest: tracing(): check for notrace > cyclictest: move debugfs init code to its own function > cyclictest: move tracemark_fd handling to its own function > cyclictest: add --tracemark option > > src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >