Re: [PATCH 10/12] perf test: Replace brstack test workload

[German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>]

On 10/11/2022 19:20, German Gomez wrote:
> Hi Namhyung, thanks for doing the refactor, it looks a lot cleaner
>
> On 10/11/2022 18:19, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> So that it can get rid of requirement of a compiler.  Also rename the
>> symbols to match with the perf test workload.
>>
>> Cc: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>> ---
>>  tools/perf/tests/shell/test_brstack.sh | 66 +++++---------------------
>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/shell/test_brstack.sh b/tools/perf/tests/shell/test_brstack.sh
>> index ec801cffae6b..a8a182dea25f 100755
>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/shell/test_brstack.sh
>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/shell/test_brstack.sh
>> @@ -4,18 +4,12 @@
>>  # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>  # German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>, 2022
>>  
>> -# we need a C compiler to build the test programs
>> -# so bail if none is found
>> -if ! [ -x "$(command -v cc)" ]; then
>> -	echo "failed: no compiler, install gcc"
>> -	exit 2
>> -fi
>> -
>>  # skip the test if the hardware doesn't support branch stack sampling
>>  # and if the architecture doesn't support filter types: any,save_type,u
>>  perf record -b -o- -B --branch-filter any,save_type,u true > /dev/null 2>&1 || exit 2

Hmm I was wondering why this command was failing for me and always skipping the test. Is the -b conflicting with the --branch-filter here?