Mirror of the lttng-dev mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: compudj@krystal.dyndns.org (Mathieu Desnoyers)
Subject: [ltt-dev] [UST PATCH] TESTS: Add a delay at the start of the	fork test for a more uniform testing.
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:45:51 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP7FAF9CCB21C7E3E43B2FA96DB0@phx.gbl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D63DF64.4080806@gmail.com>

* Yannick Brosseau (yannick.brosseau at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> >>>>         
> >>> I'm afraid we're falling into a bit of a trap here. The trap is called
> >>> "fixing the test-case instead of fixing the code". It's quite typical
> >>>     
> >> No that's not the case here. I'm fixing the test case, so it shows us a
> >> problem that was occuring randomly before.
> >> With my "fix" to the test case, the test case will fail all the time and
> >> showing us the problem when we fork later. (Some application do it, so
> >> UST should not fail there)
> >>   
> > So you're saying that this causes the test case to fail all the time
> > because now we leave time for things to properly initialise, while if
> > we don't initialise things sometimes work?
> > I think I understand what you mean but I still don't agree. What about
> > making sure somehow that we are fully initialized before we hit
> > main()? In the case where we are tracing from startup using usttrace
> > we should in fact be fully initialised before we allow the program to
> > enter main.
> >
> > If you don't think we should be fully initialized before entering
> > main() please explain why.
> 
> I have no real opinion on the initialization, I don't have enough
> knowledge about it right now.
> But I see no real needs for the consumerd to be started before we start
> main. I can imagine cases where we want to get to main the fastest way
> possible and leave the unnecessary things for later.
> 
> That being said, my goal right now it to get a test suite that do useful
> tests and can identify problems and the change I propose to the test are
> finding problems.
> 
> Also, if we decide that we need to be fully initialized, we will need to
> write a test case that can test that.

Exactly. I think we need to test:

- case where app is started slightly before consumerd
- case where app is started after consumerd

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> _______________________________________________
> ltt-dev mailing list
> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com




  reply	other threads:[~2011-02-23 15:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-02-21 19:36 Yannick Brosseau
2011-02-22  8:28 ` Nils Carlson
2011-02-22 14:51   ` Yannick Brosseau
2011-02-22 15:54     ` Nils Carlson
2011-02-22 16:08       ` Yannick Brosseau
2011-02-23 15:45         ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2011-02-23  8:36 ` Nils Carlson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=BLU0-SMTP7FAF9CCB21C7E3E43B2FA96DB0@phx.gbl \
    --to=compudj@krystal.dyndns.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox