From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:15:11 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH V2 1/2] ltp: Add the ability to specify the latency constraint In-Reply-To: <20170815110648.GC20715@rei.lan> References: <337916262.70548323.1502450718721.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <1502456086-14696-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <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> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: ltp@lists.linux.it On 15/08/2017 13:06, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > Hi! >>> And even if only subset of them fails I would still consider changing >>> the timer library rather than individual testcases. >> >> Yes, that make sense. >> >> Do you want keep the latency option for future use? >=20 > 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 Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM= SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog