Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip Sigtrap test for arm+aarch64

[Marco Elver]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 18:34, John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> >> -#if defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__s390x__)
> >> +#if defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__s390x__) || \
> >> +       defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__)
> >>   #define BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED 0
> >>   #else
> >>   #define BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED 1
> >
> > This is now equivalent to BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED
> > tools/perf/tests/tests.h -- and different from the original
> > BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED (and makes me wonder why
> > BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED wasn't just used from the beginning). Perhaps
> > just use BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED.
> >
>
> We currently have BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED defined now in 2x locations:
>
> tests/sigtrap.c
> tests/bp_account.c
>
> bp_account works for arm64, and we don't want to skip that test. So, as
> long as the macro meaning is appropriate, we can reuse
> BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED for sigtrap.c

BP_ACCOUNT seems to say something about the "breakpoint accounting /
measuring" test. BP_SIGNAL is about the tests that want to use
breakpoints to generate signals.

So it's very much appropriate to use BP_SIGNAL here if, as we have
discovered regardless how they're generated in response to
breakpoints, are broken on arm/arm64. On the day arm/arm64 decides to
fix signals, I'm assuming all tests being skipped with
BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED can be re-enabled (or so we hope).

Thanks,
-- Marco