From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nils.carlson@ericsson.com (Nils Carlson) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:54:21 +0100 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: 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? /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 >