From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 124094 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2015 22:37:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 124084 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2015 22:37:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:37:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3257768E19; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fche.csb (vpn-56-82.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.56.82]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tAUMbHnN010073; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 17:37:17 -0500 Received: by fche.csb (Postfix, from userid 2569) id 4A30C585FC; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 17:37:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:37:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: =?utf-8?B?WmhvdSwgV2Vuamlhbi/lkajmlofliZE=?= Cc: David Smith , systemtap@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] add case for probe timer Message-ID: <20151130223716.GK23121@redhat.com> References: <1447406704-14585-1-git-send-email-zhouwj-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <5656C888.3080503@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5656C888.3080503@cn.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-SW-Source: 2015-q4/txt/msg00204.txt.bz2 Hi - > I try to send essential cases, but I can't make sure all of the cases > are needed. > So I need your help. If you have time, you can tell me why the cases have > no sense, or you can just let me know which are meaningless. The general idea is to check for duplication. If you are testing a language control flow construct, see if there is already ample usage of that same construct already in the testsuite. If you are testing a probe point, see if that same point, or a close member of the family, is already well-represented. The other idea is that for new tests for fairly old/static parts of code are probably not worth much effort, that code having been proven over time. For example, the cond_compile test is thoroughly covered already by other stuff; check all the %( %) preprocessor usage in the tapsets as well as other testsuite script. The semko ones don't look too duplicative, but also don't relate to recently-changed code. I wouldn't oppose those going into the testsuite, but the slight extra cost of making the test runs longer counts slightly against them. - FChE