MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230201163420.1579014-1-revest@chromium.org> <20230201163420.1579014-2-revest@chromium.org>
 <Y9vPAdFBJF/gKXaO@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com> <CABRcYmLrYXuP-yio0dy4WskENn81Qw2WS0ArMp=rdHuiGyjYhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABRcYmL7exDGnBTzj-DHLSf49_tz6bSDfjn9CDLO9ZEbfFyh-w@mail.gmail.com> <20230207103519.1f0ef013@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20230207103519.1f0ef013@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2023 17:19:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CABRcYmJQUPp=0TGKACX8-c69hgf8xuLAiLVO3oCFn3i1FCXUfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] ftrace: Replace uses of _ftrace_direct APIs with _ftrace_direct_multi
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org,
        ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
        kpsingh@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, xukuohai@huaweicloud.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 4:35 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 16:21:49 +0100
> Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I'm not sure anymore if we should delete the !multi samples...
> >
> > I realized that they are also used as part of the ftrace selftests in:
> > - tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/direct/ftrace-direct.tc
> > - tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/direct/kprobe-direct.tc
> >
> > It does not really make sense to use the ftrace-direct-muti sample as
> > a drop-in replacement for the ftrace-direct sample there since they
> > don't really do the same thing so we would either need to change the
> > test a bit or the multi sample.
> > Also, we would still need to adapt the ftrace-direct-too sample since
> > it has no multi equivalent and is required there.
>
> Let's not delete the samples, and they do test slightly different use cases
> (although the code may be somewhat the same). I rather still keep that test
> coverage.
>
> -- Steve

Ack :) Thanks Steve!

I'll undo the work I've started to do on this and send a v2 shortly afterward.