Re: A patch series improving data quality of perf test for CoreSight

[James Clark]

On 12/07/2022 14:57, carsten.haitzler@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> This is a prelude to adding more tests to shell tests and in order to
> support putting those tests into subdirectories, I need to change the
> test code that scans/finds and runs them.
> 
> To support subdirs I have to recurse so it's time to refactor the code to
> allow this and centralize the shell script finding into one location and
> only one single scan that builds a list of all the found tests in memory
> instead of it being duplicated in 3 places.
> 
> This code also optimizes things like knowing the max width of desciption
> strings (as we can do that while we scan instead of a whole new pass
> of opening files). It also more cleanly filters scripts to see only
> *.sh files thus skipping random other files in directories like *~
> backup files, other random junk/data files that may appear and the
> scripts must be executable to make the cut (this ensures the script
> lib dir is not seen as scripts to run). This avoids perf test running
> previous older versions of test scripts that are editor backup files
> as well as skipping perf.data files that may appear and so on.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@xxxxxxx>
> 
> 

Hi Carsten,

What's the plan to move forward with the current test failures? As you
said in the previous patchset it seems that we're not 100% sure if the
failures are a Coresight bug or a test bug.

Do you want to investigate to see what the issue might be? Or do you
intend to leave that to someone else?

Even if it is a Coresight bug rather than a test bug, we shouldn't
merge them because it will cause anyone running the tests to wonder if
they have done something wrong or to duplicate the investigation work,
or that a regression has been added to the kernel.

Thanks
James