From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:50:30 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH V2 1/2] ltp: Add the ability to specify the latency constraint In-Reply-To: References: <20170811140905.GB3341@rei.lan> <20170811152855.GA14152@rei.lan> <20170814133351.GA11524@rei> <99937465-7b6b-ce2c-6194-bf920b2994f4@linaro.org> <20170814143609.GB11524@rei> <20170815110648.GC20715@rei.lan> Message-ID: <20170817135029.GA31322@rei> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > >> Yes, that make sense. > >> > >> Do you want keep the latency option for future use? > > > > I tend not to add anything just in case that we may need it later in > > order to keep the test library as small as possible, it's complex enough > > even as it is. Moreover we can always add it easily when we find a test > > that requires it. > > Setting the latency to zero in tst_timer_start(), if the opening of the > /dev/cpu_dma_latency file fails, we continue but issue a warning with > > tst_resm(TWARN, > "Failed to open '/dev/cpu_dma_latency': %s', > strerror(errno)); > > is ok ? Issuing TWARN marks the test as a failure, you should go for TINFO if you want just inform the user about non-fatal problem. Also are you sure that tst_timer_start() is the right place to open the file? That function is called ~1000 times in each timer test hence this would add quite a bit of overhead. Why don't we just put it into the timer_setup() in the lib/tst_timer_test.c that is called once at the start of the test? -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz