From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luiz Capitulino Subject: [RFC 0/4] cyclictest: improve running under trace-cmd Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 14:43:49 -0500 Message-ID: <1456256633-17639-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> 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]:45322 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754318AbcBWTn6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 14:43:58 -0500 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E45FD302482 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:43:57 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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(-) -- 2.1.0