[PATCH] btrace, test: remove buffer-size test with unlimited buffer size

[PATCH] btrace, test: remove buffer-size test with unlimited buffer size

[Markus Metzger]

The gdb.btrace/buffer-size.exp test starts recording with an unlimited
buffer size.  This will, for a short time, use up most if not all BTS
resources.

I don' think this test is necessary.  Remove it.

2015-09-11  Markus Metzger <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>
---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.btrace/buffer-size.exp | 12 +-----------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.btrace/buffer-size.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.btrace/buffer-size.exp
index 86d8270..77290d1 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.btrace/buffer-size.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.btrace/buffer-size.exp
@@ -44,14 +44,4 @@ gdb_test "info record" [multi_line \
 gdb_test "record stop" ".*" "stop recording with small bts buffer"
 
 gdb_test_no_output "set record btrace bts buffer-size 0"
-gdb_test "show record btrace bts buffer-size" "The record/replay bts buffer size is unlimited\.\r" "unlimited bts buffer size before recording"
-
-gdb_test_no_output "record btrace bts"
-gdb_test "show record btrace bts buffer-size" "The record/replay bts buffer size is unlimited\.\r" "unlimited bts buffer size while recording"
-gdb_test "info record" [multi_line \
-  "Active record target: record-btrace" \
-  "Recording format: Branch Trace Store\." \
-  "Buffer size: .*\." \
-  "Recorded 0 instructions in 0 functions \\\(0 gaps\\\) for \[^\\\r\\\n\]*" \
-  ] "info record with unlimited bts buffer"
-gdb_test "record stop" ".*" "stop recording with unlimited bts buffer"
+gdb_test "show record btrace bts buffer-size" "The record/replay bts buffer size is unlimited\.\r" "unlimited bts buffer size"
-- 
1.8.3.1

Re: [PATCH] btrace, test: remove buffer-size test with unlimited buffer size

[Pedro Alves]

On 09/11/2015 10:02 AM, Markus Metzger wrote:
> The gdb.btrace/buffer-size.exp test starts recording with an unlimited
> buffer size.  This will, for a short time, use up most if not all BTS
> resources.
> 
> I don' think this test is necessary.  Remove it.
> 

Fine with me.

Note you don't really need approval to push this in.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves

RE: [PATCH] btrace, test: remove buffer-size test with unlimited buffer size

[Metzger, Markus T]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:15 AM
> To: Metzger, Markus T
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrace, test: remove buffer-size test with unlimited
> buffer size
> 
> On 09/11/2015 10:02 AM, Markus Metzger wrote:
> > The gdb.btrace/buffer-size.exp test starts recording with an unlimited
> > buffer size.  This will, for a short time, use up most if not all BTS
> > resources.
> >
> > I don' think this test is necessary.  Remove it.
> >
> 
> Fine with me.
> 
> Note you don't really need approval to push this in.

Nice.  But we still want patches to be reviewed, don't we?
Or does this fall under the obvious rule?

Regards,
Markus.

Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Prof. Dr. Hermann Eul
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Tiffany Doon Silva
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928

Re: [PATCH] btrace, test: remove buffer-size test with unlimited buffer size

[Pedro Alves]

On 09/11/2015 10:18 AM, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:15 AM
>> To: Metzger, Markus T
>> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrace, test: remove buffer-size test with unlimited
>> buffer size
>>
>> On 09/11/2015 10:02 AM, Markus Metzger wrote:
>>> The gdb.btrace/buffer-size.exp test starts recording with an unlimited
>>> buffer size.  This will, for a short time, use up most if not all BTS
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> I don' think this test is necessary.  Remove it.
>>>
>>
>> Fine with me.
>>
>> Note you don't really need approval to push this in.
> 
> Nice.  But we still want patches to be reviewed, don't we?

Certainly.  And I'll gladly review anything you send my way.

> Or does this fall under the obvious rule?

I wouldn't say the idea is obvious, though once the idea
is accepted, the code changes are indeed obvious.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves