Messages in this thread | | | From | Marco Elver <> | Date | Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:40:45 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip Sigtrap test for arm+aarch64 |
| |
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 18:34, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote: [...] > >> -#if defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__s390x__) > >> +#if defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__s390x__) || \ > >> + defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__) > >> #define BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED 0 > >> #else > >> #define BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED 1 > > > > This is now equivalent to BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED > > tools/perf/tests/tests.h -- and different from the original > > BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED (and makes me wonder why > > BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED wasn't just used from the beginning). Perhaps > > just use BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED. > > > > We currently have BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED defined now in 2x locations: > > tests/sigtrap.c > tests/bp_account.c > > bp_account works for arm64, and we don't want to skip that test. So, as > long as the macro meaning is appropriate, we can reuse > BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED for sigtrap.c
BP_ACCOUNT seems to say something about the "breakpoint accounting / measuring" test. BP_SIGNAL is about the tests that want to use breakpoints to generate signals.
So it's very much appropriate to use BP_SIGNAL here if, as we have discovered regardless how they're generated in response to breakpoints, are broken on arm/arm64. On the day arm/arm64 decides to fix signals, I'm assuming all tests being skipped with BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED can be re-enabled (or so we hope).
Thanks, -- Marco
| |