Em Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 03:24:44PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:38:59AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > This patch is marked as RFC because I'd really like to solicit opinions
> > on this approach and hear feedback on whether this is the correct way to
> > structure these arch tests. I realise that we've already got tests for
> > the TSC, etc that are x86-specific but I didn't want to change the order
> > of the tests (say, by moving test__perf_time_to_tsc() into ARCH_TESTS)
> > in case that broke some kind of ABI.
> I wouldn't consider the order of tests being ABI,
> let's break it and watch ;-)
yeah
> SNIP
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> > b/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> > +#define ARCH_TESTS \
> > + { \
> > + .desc = "Test intel cqm nmi context read", \
> > + .func = test__intel_cqm_count_nmi_context, \
> > + },
> > +
>
> hum, I dont like much this being stuffed in macro,
> but dont have any technical reason against ;-)
>
> maybe we could add 'struct test arch_tests[]' array, that'd be
> initialized by each arch and executed in addition to the current
> 'struct test tests[]'
Agreed, that would be cleaner, and we need something like that anyway,
i.e. some way to group tests that run only if certain requirements are
met, i.e. tests that require root permission, arch specific ones, etc.
- Arnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
