From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E55FFC4167B for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 18:15:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231951AbjLJR7G (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Dec 2023 12:59:06 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36810 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229462AbjLJR7F (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Dec 2023 12:59:05 -0500 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92A41A7 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:59:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56A5CC433C7; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 17:59:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2023 12:59:08 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: LKML , Linux Trace Kernel , Masami Hiramatsu , Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Allow for max buffer data size trace_marker writes Message-ID: <20231210125908.5bf1cf7a@rorschach.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20231209175003.63db40ab@gandalf.local.home> <2683467e-cadb-4bb8-8c50-87ef052edacb@efficios.com> <20231210103009.29010d00@gandalf.local.home> <20231210113829.780c7097@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 12:28:32 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > Again, it's not a requirement, it's just an enhancement. > > How does this have anything to do with dispensing from testing the > new behavior ? If the new behavior has a bug that causes it to > silently truncate the trace marker payloads, how do you catch it > with the current tests ? I'm not disagreeing with you, but honestly, writing tests that can be submitted, take up time I simply do not have. So it's either I get this working and manually test it, or not apply it at all. This was a simple change which is why I added it. The tests will take much longer to write than the enhancement itself. If someone wants to submit patches that test this further, I'd be more than happy to apply them! It may be several more months before I get the time to work on this any further, and there's still several other features that are in my queue to apply, where some of them will be affected by these changes. Right now I'm just focused on that any of these changes do not cause regressions in the workflow that others have. The trace_marker usage that I've ever seen has been simple writes that are never more than a couple of hundred bytes. The main reason I added this change was to be able to test the subbuffer change. Otherwise I would never had made this change. Adding more tests is on my todo list, and not just for this, but for other features. I do have a bunch of tests I run locally that are not upsteam, but they are mostly hacks that require a lot of clean up before being added to selftests. -- Steve