From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754005AbaJHCVD (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:21:03 -0400 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.229]:25320 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753881AbaJHCVB (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:21:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:20:50 -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: <20141007222050.59e076e7@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <54349A95.6040309@hitachi.com> References: <20141006114806.2573.63966.stgit@kbuild-f20.novalocal> <20141006183349.60998821@gandalf.local.home> <5433817C.3000206@hitachi.com> <20141007120530.136312fd@gandalf.local.home> <54349A95.6040309@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 Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:59:49 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > 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. > > Keeping it has no issue. But it's much easier to expand the test > in userspace than the kernel code. I'll add more feature tests in > kselftest, but not in this code. This means that this startup > test code will get behind. And that's exactly what I expect you to do. I have lots of tests to test ftrace, but what gets tested at kernel startup is just a bare minimum, and that's all it needs to be. I don't expect you to extend the start up self tests. That should be only done for the scripts. But we have this start up test and I don't see a reason to get rid of it. If anything, it gives me warm fuzzies in my stomach when I see it pass :-) The start up tests in the kernel should really just be the basic of the basic tests, that give a small sanity check that a change didn't totally screw things up. Can you send a new patch that doesn't remove the start up test? Thanks! -- Steve