Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf test: Test FASYNC with watermark wakeups.

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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