Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:07:22 +0100 | Subject | Re: A patch series improving data quality of perf test for CoreSight | From | James Clark <> |
| |
On 12/07/2022 14:57, carsten.haitzler@foss.arm.com wrote: > This is a prelude to adding more tests to shell tests and in order to > support putting those tests into subdirectories, I need to change the > test code that scans/finds and runs them. > > To support subdirs I have to recurse so it's time to refactor the code to > allow this and centralize the shell script finding into one location and > only one single scan that builds a list of all the found tests in memory > instead of it being duplicated in 3 places. > > This code also optimizes things like knowing the max width of desciption > strings (as we can do that while we scan instead of a whole new pass > of opening files). It also more cleanly filters scripts to see only > *.sh files thus skipping random other files in directories like *~ > backup files, other random junk/data files that may appear and the > scripts must be executable to make the cut (this ensures the script > lib dir is not seen as scripts to run). This avoids perf test running > previous older versions of test scripts that are editor backup files > as well as skipping perf.data files that may appear and so on. > > Signed-off-by: Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@arm.com> > >
Hi Carsten,
What's the plan to move forward with the current test failures? As you said in the previous patchset it seems that we're not 100% sure if the failures are a Coresight bug or a test bug.
Do you want to investigate to see what the issue might be? Or do you intend to leave that to someone else?
Even if it is a Coresight bug rather than a test bug, we shouldn't merge them because it will cause anyone running the tests to wonder if they have done something wrong or to duplicate the investigation work, or that a regression has been added to the kernel.
Thanks James
| |