On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:17:15AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:23:16 -0800 > Beau Belgrave <beaub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Adds unit tests for user_events when available. Ensures APIs are working > > correctly and appropriate errors are being returned. > > > > Signed-off-by: Beau Belgrave <beaub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > utest/tracefs-utest.c | 233 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 233 insertions(+) > > > > OK, so I couldn't get the selftest working because I didn't have > user_events.h. I then worked to get that, but the selftest still failed > with: > The suspense is killing me, what did it fail with? :) (Guessing you saw the fprintf message when I simulate a failure). > After thinking about this a bit, I've decided that I'll release 1.3 without > this patch series. > No worries. > The reason being, I want 1.3 to get into distros ASAP. As adding this patch > series will put a dependency on user_events.h (yes it builds without it, > but distros want everything that it can build applied), then that puts a > dependency on 1.3 to having user_events.h available, which may be a while > as it has to get into 5.18, and then slowly move to the distro kernels. > Understood. > If distros did build it without user_events.h and then later on with > user_evnets.h then we have two versions of 1.3 where one supports > user_events and one does not. And you can not use versioning to determine > if your application will link to the library or not. > > With all this in mind, I've decided to hold off this to libtracefs 1.4, and > when user_events is solidly in the kernel. > > But I'm very excited to have this work in both the kernel and libtracefs. I > just want it properly done though. > Yeah, do you want me to send out a v3 with some of the fixes? Or have you put this into a branch somewhere already (I saw your other patch on top of this one). I fixed some style nits that were bugging me, as they didn't align to the kernel style. Thanks, -Beau
|