From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754309AbaJGQFe (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:05:34 -0400 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.225]:17244 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753176AbaJGQFd (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:05:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:05:30 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Shuah Khan , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH ftrace/for-next ] tracing/kprobes: Replace startup test with selftest script Message-ID: <20141007120530.136312fd@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <5433817C.3000206@hitachi.com> References: <20141006114806.2573.63966.stgit@kbuild-f20.novalocal> <20141006183349.60998821@gandalf.local.home> <5433817C.3000206@hitachi.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.24; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.130:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:00:28 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > (2014/10/07 7:33), Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:48:06 +0000 > > Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > >> Replace the kprobe_tracer's startup test with two selftest scripts. > >> These test cases are testing that the kprobe_event can accept a > >> kprobe event with $stack related arguments and a kretprobe event > >> with $retval argument. > > > > Can't we keep both? I have boxes I run my own tests with and enables > > these start up tests in the kernel. I don't plan on testing on all > > theses boxes using the scripts in the kernel. > > > > Having a self test in the kernel itself can be useful too. > > Hmm, deprecating the test is acceptable, but I think it is just > a dead weight that if we have both of them forever in the kernel. > Of course, if that feature is fundamentally related to booting up > the kernel, we need to keep them in boot up code. But if it is > possible to run after booting up, I think we'd better to move it > under kselftest, since we can do more investigation after booting. > I'm just saying that it is more likely to have this test run if it's in the kernel than in userspace. But as you say, we can debug it better if there's a userspace tool that can run too. This is why I'm saying we should keep both. I think they are both useful for different reasons. Keeping it in the kernel as a config option will give it more exposure, and keeping it in the tools/testing directory gives us a way to debug it if there an issue should arise. Both of these have valid reasons staying in the kernel and I don't see either as dead weight. Is there a maintenance issue with keeping it in the kernel? There doesn't seem to be much done to it. It seems untouched for over a year, and that was to add support for multiple buffers. -- Steve