On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > In short, this series allows you to run cyclictest under > trace-cmd and still get trace marks when the latency > specified with -b is execeded. More details in patch 4/4. > > This series is RFC because I'm not completely sure this > is the right thing to do. I'm wondering if we shouldn't > ditch all tracing support from cyclictest... > > Luiz Capitulino (4): > cyclictest: tracing(): check for notrace > cyclictest: move debugfs init code to its own function > cyclictest: move tracemark_fd handling to its own function > cyclictest: add --tracemark option > > src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > -- Hi. First of all, although I didn't look closely at the details yet, I like this set of patches. Just to let you and everyone else know where we are, Clark and I are going to put rt-tests into maintainence mode very shortly. We want to create a 1.0 version of it, which we will maintain with fixes, but no new features. This last set of patches would be a nice addition before we go into mainatinence mode so that the old code base would have a way of using trace-cmd. For the next development line of rt-tests, we would like to rip-out all of the tracing code that we can, and leave the bare minimum in place to interact with trace-cmd. With that in mind, could you go over your RFC patches, and if you are satisfied that they don't break anything, but allow tracing under trace-cmd, then this could be the last new feature we let in. Let me know and I'll review at that point. I'll make and official announcement about maintainence mode and a new development line in a separate mail as well. Thank You! John Kacur -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
