Re: [PATCH 0/2] s390 vs. kprobes on ftrace

[Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:49:56PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> I'm not sure about s390 nor have the machine, so it is very helpful if you
> give us a command line level test and show us the result with this patch :)
> Fortunately, we already have ftracetest under tools/tesitng/selftest/ftrace/.
> You can add the testcase for checking co-existence of kprobes and ftrace on
> an entry of a function.

FWIW, I was also surprised to see that the order of the ftrace testcases is
not sorted. Maybe you might consider the patch below as well:

>From a659098f63f188e603316e4c4ccb435bf360987a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:08:35 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] ftracetest: sort testcases

Make sure the order of the executed testcases is always the same.

Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest
index a8f81c782856..2007a2cde56f 100755
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ abspath() {
 }
 
 find_testcases() { #directory
-  echo `find $1 -name \*.tc`
+  echo `find $1 -name \*.tc | sort`
 }
 
 parse_opts() { # opts
-- 
1.8.5.5