Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-78964-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 15:17:24 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Cc: Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>, Kyle Huey <khuey@kylehuey.com>,
	Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf test: Test FASYNC with watermark wakeups.
Message-ID: <ZdjhNG1T6j6miiYg@x1>
References: <20240221175210.19936-1-khuey@kylehuey.com>
 <20240221175210.19936-2-khuey@kylehuey.com>
 <CAP-5=fXsv7TJ_SVOZc38fN0gn+7cWBcMWt3FdVLcs5v0_vO=uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP045AoSHWoOP3TN=6Hf2wZj7X9Y41sThBQWCDZ3BEP68qeTBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZdemibZepMqWvv6U@x1>
 <CAP045Aqc6woHGYKJG4d=x4gPd0=PmrLeFv25Rkts1a8xFuocOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-5=fXzidk9hLm5bek3q1crds4mEjdgpq=s0YCSzLCj1GtvzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAP-5=fXzidk9hLm5bek3q1crds4mEjdgpq=s0YCSzLCj1GtvzQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:01:31AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 9:35 AM Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com> wrote:
> > I think perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here. This seems like a
> > ton of work just to write a regression test. Maybe I should be doing
> > this in tools/testing/selftests instead?
 
> The problem is detecting support for the feature in the kernel. The
> BTF approach isn't that bad, a couple of finds, but I think in this
> case there isn't anything to be found to indicate the feature is
> present. I like the perf test as perf tests are a form of
> documentation. Perhaps just using TEST_SKIP here (rather than
> TEST_FAIL) is best and the skip_reason can be a presumed lack of
> kernel support.

But going forward the general expectation is that it should pass as
the feature _is_ present, isn't it?

- Arnaldo