On Fri, 4 Sep 2020, Daniel Wagner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 08:39:48PM -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > > I think it's a noble goal and I'd be up for it, especially trying to come > > up with a parsable output format. Got any thoughts on it? Personally I'd > > go for (in order of preference): > > > > XML > > JSON > > Random Gibberish > > Any Damned thing > > YAML > > For jitterdebugger I ended up adding a bunch of plugins for the output > format. So I don't have to argue which format it best, though if I had > to choose I'd properly pick JSON. > > > Did I mention that I hate YAML? > > Named must be your fear before banish it you can. > We have some software called rteval that parses the output of cyclictest. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/rteval/rteval.git/ (I'll take patches for that too) It runs cyclictest under-the-covers like this cyclictest -qmu -h 2000 -p95 -t -a and parses the output. The output is then transformed into XML. What I like about this, is that it keeps cyclictest lightweight since the data it parses is just text. Then rteval could generate whatever kind of output you are interested in. xml for clark, yaml for the yammering crowd and so on. I'm not saying this is the only legitimate approach, but I would like to keep the individual tools lightweight in rt-tests, so that you could run them individually in the embedded space as well as on large machines. So one way to start would be to make sure that the other tools in the rt-tests suite are capable of generating a similar kind of output, that could then be processed by other tools. John
