Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:21:12 +0200 | From | Heiko Carstens <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] s390 vs. kprobes on ftrace |
| |
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:49:56PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > I'm not sure about s390 nor have the machine, so it is very helpful if you > give us a command line level test and show us the result with this patch :) > Fortunately, we already have ftracetest under tools/tesitng/selftest/ftrace/. > You can add the testcase for checking co-existence of kprobes and ftrace on > an entry of a function.
FWIW, I was also surprised to see that the order of the ftrace testcases is not sorted. Maybe you might consider the patch below as well:
From a659098f63f188e603316e4c4ccb435bf360987a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:08:35 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] ftracetest: sort testcases
Make sure the order of the executed testcases is always the same.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest index a8f81c782856..2007a2cde56f 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ abspath() { } find_testcases() { #directory - echo `find $1 -name \*.tc` + echo `find $1 -name \*.tc | sort` } parse_opts() { # opts -- 1.8.5.5
| |