From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:02:23 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH V2 1/2] ltp: Add the ability to specify the latency constraint In-Reply-To: <20170817135029.GA31322@rei> 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> <20170817135029.GA31322@rei> Message-ID: <159427fd-195a-8a6c-086f-2f01d829e8a7@linaro.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: ltp@lists.linux.it On 17/08/2017 15:50, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > 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 =09 >> >> tst_resm(TWARN, >> "Failed to open '/dev/cpu_dma_latency': %s', >> strerror(errno)); >> >> is ok ? >=20 > Issuing TWARN marks the test as a failure, you should go for TINFO if > you want just inform the user about non-fatal problem. Ok. > 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? Yes, absolutely. Thanks. -- Daniel --=20 Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM= SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog