From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Kacur Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] cyclictest: improve running under trace-cmd Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:37:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <1456417757-13444-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <20160316172321.7fbc829e@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-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:33672 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932608AbcCPWhg (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:37:36 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id x188so3541646wmg.0 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:37:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160316172321.7fbc829e@redhat.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 16 Mar 2016, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:29:13 -0500 > Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > > > > This is just a repost of my RFC posting with no changes. > > I have tested it a bit more and I think it's good > > for inclusion. > > ping? > > > > > Original intro: > > > > 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(-) > > > > -- I'll have a closer look tomorrow, but these look okay. John