This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: ARM port of testsuite and general testsuite fixes
- From: David Smith <dsmith at redhat dot com>
- To: Quentin Barnes <qbarnes at urbana dot css dot mot dot com>
- Cc: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:01:33 -0500
- Subject: Re: ARM port of testsuite and general testsuite fixes
- References: <20070606003646.GB20115@urbana.css.mot.com>
Quentin Barnes wrote:
The ARM version of the test suite of 20070602 just completed. I'll
post the specifics later. With the earlier patches plus the patch
below, here's the summary using a 2.6.21.1 kernel in case anyone's
curious:
=======
=== systemtap Summary ===
# of expected passes 277
# of unexpected failures 37
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures 129
# of known failures 7
# of untested testcases 30
# of unsupported tests 3
=======
Of course it is amazing that you got this working at all, but 37
failures is still quite high.
Below is the patch necessary to fix all timeout problems when running
on an ARM processor and other porting issues related to ARM.
I didn't go with a strategy that makes the hardcoded timeout values
variable. Once I fixed various testsuite bugs, the timeout values
didn't increase all that much after all. I felt the difference
wasn't enough warrant switching to a new scheme for. If people feel
otherwise, we should discuss it further.
Hmm. Looking over the timeout value changes/additions, I see several
different values:
20 (1 instance)
60 (1 instance)
120 (4 instances)
150 (17 instances)
180 (3 instances)
240 (4 instances)
360 (1 instance)
400 (1 instance)
1800 (1 instance)
It seems like we ought to standardize a bit and have 4 (or some other
number) standard timeout values (that we could customize per platform if
needed). I think you (or someone else) suggested this earlier.
(Note that I don't have a problem with you checking your patch in as is
and then we can go back later and improve things.)
There are various bug fixes scattered throughout the patch. Please
review them carefully, but most should be self-explanatory.
One question I have is that you changed several instances of "." to "\."
in regular expressions. Out of curiosity did you actually see a problem
here or were you just cleaning up?
--
David Smith
dsmith@redhat.com
Red Hat
http://www.redhat.com
256.217.0141 (direct)
256.837.0057 (fax)