[PATCH 0 of 2] Add systemtap tapset tests

[Jon VanAlten]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Wielaard" <mjw at redhat.com>
> To: "Jon VanAlten" <jon.vanalten at redhat.com>
> Cc: "IcedTea" <distro-pkg-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 4:22:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 2] Add systemtap tapset tests
> 
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 02:44:45PM -0400, Jon VanAlten wrote:
> > > Jon, if you could take a look that would be appreciated. The
> > > changes
> > > I made to your original were:
> > > - Switched detect_probes from a negative test (see if the stap -l
> > > fails)
> > >   to a positive test (see if that stap -l output matches the
> > >   expected
> > >   probe name). And use -L to force expansion of all arguments.
> > > - Added an explicit stap script run test to make sure the user
> > > has
> > >   enough permissions (and if not skip the actual probe tests).
> > > - Made the test program do a little more so method_compiled tests
> > >   have enough time to detect all probe events (specifically run
> > >   some
> > >   triggers twice with a small Thread.sleep in between to give
> > >   hotspot
> > >   enough time to finish the jit compilation of a method).
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, Present-Jon does see opportunities for improvements to the
> > code
> > that Past-Jon wrote way back then, but it does still look like it
> > does what it is meant to do, and your improvements are sensible.  I
> > approve :)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> After merging with Andrew Hughes icedtea7 jdk7 u4 update I found one
> thing that needed improving. The thread_start and thread_stop tests
> had the thread id (tid) of the first user thread hard coded to 8.
> But the new hotspot started even more background threads. So I made
> the attached change to make the test accept any positive number tid.
> (It should also apply cleanly to 6, where I will add it to keep
> things
> in sync.)
> 

This improvment also looks fine to me.

cheers,
jon