Re: [F.A.Q.] perf ABI backwards and forwards compatibility

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 13:15 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > The one notable thing that isnt being tested in a natural way is 
> > the 'group of events' abstraction - which, ironically, has been 
> > added on the perfmon guys' insistence. No app beyond the PAPI 
> > self-test makes actual use of it though, which results in an 
> > obvious lack of testing.
> 
> Also the self monitor stuff, perf-tool doesn't use that for obvious 
> reasons.

Indeed, and that's PAPI's strong point.

We could try to utilize it via some clever LD_PRELOAD trickery?

Adding a testcase for every bug that can be triggered via tooling 
would definitely be an improvement as well - those kinds of testcases 
generally tend to map out the really important bits faster than an 
attempt at exhaustive testing.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/