* Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 11 May 2009, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > >>> Two high-level comments: > >>> > >>> - There's no self-test - would it be possible to add one? See > >>> trace_selftest* in kernel/trace/ > >> I'm not so sure. Currently, it seems that those self-tests are > >> only for tracers which define new event-entry on ring-buffer. > >> Since this tracer just use ftrace_bprintk, it might need > >> another kind of selftest. e.g. comparing outputs with > >> expected patterns. > >> In that case, would it be better to make a user-space self test > >> including filters and tracepoints? > > > > Or have the workings in the selftest in kernel. As if a user started it. > > It does not need to write to the ring buffer, that is just what I did. The > > event selftests don't check if anything was written to the ring buffer, > > they just make sure that the tests don't crash the system. > > Would you mean that it is enough to enable some probes and just > see what happened at boot time? > That's so easy to add. Yes, that's the idea! Try to think of regressions/crashes/misbehavior you generally trigger while you developed kprobes, and try to add a reasonable set of probes that test the code from those angles. It doesnt have to be a full, complex test-suite, but even just 80% of coverage of functionality keeps 4/5th of all regressions out of the kernel at a very early stage ... Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
