Re: [RFC 0/4] cyclictest: improve running under trace-cmd

[John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Luiz Capitulino wrote:

> 
> 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(-)
> 
> -- 

Hi. First of all, although I didn't look closely at the details yet, I 
like this set of patches. Just to let you and everyone else know where we 
are, Clark and I are going to put rt-tests into maintainence mode very 
shortly. We want to create a 1.0 version of it, which we will maintain 
with fixes, but no new features. This last set of patches would be a nice 
addition before we go into mainatinence mode so that the old code base 
would have a way of using trace-cmd.

For the next development line of rt-tests, we would like to rip-out all of 
the tracing code that we can, and leave the bare minimum in place to 
interact with trace-cmd. With that in mind, could you go over your RFC 
patches, and if you are satisfied that they don't break anything, but 
allow tracing under trace-cmd, then this could be the last new feature we 
let in. Let me know and I'll review at that point. I'll make and official 
announcement about maintainence mode and a new development line in a 
separate mail as well.

Thank You!

John Kacur