From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Kacur Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] cyclictest: improve running under trace-cmd Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:08:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <1456256633-17639-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, williams@redhat.com To: Luiz Capitulino Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:36332 "EHLO mail-wm0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757457AbcBXRJB (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:09:01 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id g62so281970174wme.1 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:09:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1456256633-17639-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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