From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: compudj@krystal.dyndns.org (Mathieu Desnoyers) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:56:28 -0500 Subject: [ltt-dev] [UST PATCH] Fix libustctl_function_tests In-Reply-To: References: <1298483182-18994-1-git-send-email-yannick.brosseau@gmail.com> Message-ID: * Nils Carlson (nils.carlson at ericsson.com) wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >> * Nils Carlson (nils.carlson at ericsson.com) wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Yannick Brosseau wrote: >>> >>>> After discussions, we concluded that the enable a non existing marker is a valid case, so we >>>> move it to the working case section. >>>> While being there, check that the re-enable a marker set the right errno >>>> >>> >>> I don't really understand your reasoning. This is a question of libust >>> being broken and the test-case showing this. We should fix the test-case. >>> It should not be possible to enable a non-existent marker, the function >>> should return -1, not 0 as it currently does. >> >> Enabling a non-existent marker/tracepoint is a perfectly valid case. If >> the application later on loads a library with dlopen that contains this >> marker, it should be enabled as soon as the library is loaded. So this >> requires that the user can ask for enabling markers that do not appear >> in the marker list yet. I do that to handle module loading in LTTng >> (kernel). > > Ok. So we can pre-activate a marker... Interesting. Then I agree we can > change the test-case. Though maybe somebody should document this as it > doesn't make a lot of sense unless you consider the library case. Also, > I'm not really sure I like it. If a user expects a marker to be there > and the marker isn't it feels silly not to give any feedback. I could see > a lot of users expecting ust to complain when you activate non-existent > markers, following the rule of least-suprise I think that it should > complain. > > Have you considered adding a parameter for this? Like a FORCE_ACTIVATE > flag or something? As we move to the new ltt-sessiond scheme with integration of the kernel and userspace LTTng / LTTng-UST, enabling tracepoints in not-yet-running applications and not-yet-loaded libraries will become an even more common use-case. I don't plan on spending too much time polishing the usttrace interface, given the changes planned. Thanks, Mathieu > > /Nils > >> Thanks, >> >> Mathieu >> >>> >>> /Nils >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yannick Brosseau >>>> --- >>>> .../libustctl_function_tests.c | 10 ++++++---- >>>> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tests/libustctl_function_tests/libustctl_function_tests.c b/tests/libustctl_function_tests/libustctl_function_tests.c >>>> index 947028f..7c12695 100644 >>>> --- a/tests/libustctl_function_tests/libustctl_function_tests.c >>>> +++ b/tests/libustctl_function_tests/libustctl_function_tests.c >>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> +#include >>>> >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> @@ -136,15 +137,16 @@ static void ustctl_function_tests(pid_t pid) >>>> >>>> tap_ok(!ustctl_destroy_trace(trace, pid), "ustctl_destroy_trace - without ever starting"); >>>> >>>> + tap_ok(ustctl_set_marker_state(trace, "ustl", "blar", 1, pid) == 0, >>>> + "Enable non-existent marker ustl blar"); >>>> >>>> printf("##### Tests that definetly should work are completed #####\n"); >>>> printf("############## Start expected failure cases ##############\n"); >>>> >>>> tap_ok(ustctl_set_marker_state(trace, "ust","bar", 1, pid), >>>> "Enable already enabled marker ust/bar"); >>>> - >>>> - tap_ok(ustctl_set_marker_state(trace, "ustl", "blar", 1, pid), >>>> - "Enable non-existent marker ustl blar"); >>>> + tap_ok(EEXIST == errno, >>>> + "Right error code for enabling an already enabled marker"); >>>> >>>> tap_ok(ustctl_start_trace(trace, pid), >>>> "Start a non-existent trace"); >>>> @@ -161,7 +163,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) >>>> int i, status; >>>> pid_t parent_pid, child_pid; >>>> >>>> - tap_plan(27); >>>> + tap_plan(28); >>>> >>>> printf("Function tests for ustctl\n"); >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 1.7.2.3 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ltt-dev mailing list >>>> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca >>>> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com