út 2. 6. 2026 v 17:52 odesílatel John Kacur <[email protected]> napsal: > > Note: Patch 1/2 is a resend of the timerlat hist tests sent previously. > Patch 2/2 adds tests for the remaining rtla commands. >
Ah, this confused me. I saw cover letters, 1/2, and 2/2 with almost the same title and content, and wondered what was going on. > Signed-off-by: John Kacur <[email protected]> > > John Kacur (2): > rtla/timerlat: Add tests for option parsing with attached arguments > rtla: Add tests for option parsing with attached arguments > > tools/tracing/rtla/tests/hwnoise.t | 10 ++++++++++ > tools/tracing/rtla/tests/osnoise.t | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > tools/tracing/rtla/tests/timerlat.t | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ This should be either one patch, or three patches (hwnoise, osnoise, timerlat); especially timerlat top and timerlat hist should not be split between two commits, as the tests are in the same file. Also, identical tests for both top and hist should use check_top_hist or check_top_q_hist, see commit c15c55c01e48 ("rtla/tests: Cover both top and hist tools where possible"). Anyway, I don't think this needs runtime tests. CLI unit tests (well, actually more like integration tests, as RTLA design doesn't have proper isolated unit tests) in tools/tracing/rtla/tests/unit/*_cli.c should be able to fully cover this, with the benefit of being much faster and not requiring root or any kernel features. Do you have any concerns that cannot be covered by unit testing? > 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+) > > -- > 2.54.0 > Tomas
