Re: [PATCH 0/9] perf test: the testsuite again

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Michael Petlan wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> after some time, I am sending the proposed testsuite again. I have fixed
> couple of things there since last time.
> 
>   * three verbosity levels are now supported (perf test suite -vv)
>   * logs and temp files are stored in /tmp/, so the main tree is not
>     spoiled anymore
>   * more things can be parametrized from the outside
>   * log parsing should be more robust now
> 
> The testsuite is roughly tested on x86_64, i386, ppc64, s390x and aarch64.
> The following patches should be applicable upon the Arnaldo's tree, to the
> 'perf/core' branch.
> 
> Some issues to be discussed:
> 
> 1) Packaging
> 
> While the other tests are packed within perf, the character of this suite
> does not fit that model very well. Nowadays, it is run only when the dir
> 'testsuite' is found in the current dir. Otherwise the test is skipped.
> I still haven't found any better solution for this.
> 
> 2) In case it gets into the kernel tree, where the 'upstream' will be?
> 
> I have been developing the suite in my github repository [1]. I am planning
> to continue with that, if the suite gets or not into the kernel tree. There
> are still many testcases missing. I also backport the suite for RHEL testing
> purposes.
> 
> It is easier for me to continue the development there and merge bigger
> chunks into the kernel tree, than move all the development here. Is that
> an acceptable model?
> 
> Is there anything else that you would like to point at?

also I think you could erase the  ==== quoted lines, like:

======== base_annotate ========
-- [ PASS ] -- perf_annotate :: setup :: building the example code
-- [ PASS ] -- perf_annotate :: setup :: record data

you have the 'perf_annotate' info in each line, which I assume
is connected to the base_annotate header

jirka