On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 4:58 AM John Garry [off-list ref] wrote:

On 22/06/2021 06:04, Ian Rogers wrote:

quoted

quoted

---- end ----
Parse and process metrics: FAILED!

Note that the "FAILED" messages from the test code come from pr_debug().

In a way, I feel that pr_debug()/err from the test is more important
than pr_debug() from the core code (when running a test).

Any opinion on this or how to improve (if anyone agrees with me)? Or am
I missing something? Or is it not so important?

Hi John,

Hi Ian,

quoted

I think the issue is that in the parsing you don't know it's broken
until something goes wrong. Putting everything on pr_err would cause
spam in the not broken case.

Right, I would not suggest using pr_err everywhere.

quoted

Improving the parsing error handling is a
big task with lex and yacc to some extent getting in the way. Perhaps
a middle way is to have a parameter to the parser that logs more, and
recursively call this in the parser when parsing fails. I guess there
is also a danger of a performance hit.

So I am thinking that for running a test, -v means different levels logs
for test code and for core (non-test code). For example, -v prints
pr_warn() and higher for test logs, but nothing for core logs. And then
-vv for running a test gives pr_debug and above for test logs, and
pr_warn and above for core logs. Or something like that.

Maybe that is not a good idea. But I'm just saying that it's hard to
debug currently at -v for tests.

Thanks,
John

I think this sounds good. It'd be nice also to have verbose output in
the shell tests following the same convention. There's currently no
verbose logging in shell tests but I propose it here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210621215648.2991319-1-irogers@google.com/ (local)
By their nature some of the shell tests launch perf, perhaps there can
be some convention on passing the verbose flag through in those cases.

Thanks,
Ian