[OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] lttng-tools ptest: add missing dependencies

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 12:47 -0400, Jonathan Rajotte-Julien wrote:
> > Since the patches with a couple of fixes were passing the tests,
> > I've
> > merged the patches with the glibc/muslc tweak and also a tweak to
> > make
> > disabled ust work. I'd normally wait for v2 resubmission but I
> > wanted
> > to get this fix into M3 and the M3 build is already behind
> > schedule.
> 
> Sounds good.

I should have done this before merging but for various reasons I
didn't. Your patches sounded good and fixed various problematic things
so wouldn't seem to make anything worse.

We have some ptest results numbers from a build and it shows before:

Recipe             | Passed      | Failed   | Skipped   | Time(s)   
lttng-tools        | 4431        | 7        | 391       | 549

After recent patches:

Recipe             | Passed      | Failed   | Skipped   | Time(s)   
lttng-tools        | 3994        | 5        | 0         | 684 T

So we're down on failures but its now not running all the tests and the
"T" means the ptest timed out and was killed.

I'm comparing:

https://autobuilder.yocto.io/pub/non-release/20190228-9/testresults/
testresult-report.txt 

with the report that will appear at:

https://autobuilder.yocto.io/pub/non-release/20190318-7/testresults/

Any idea what happened?

> Well lttng-ust does work on musl as long as users do not fiddle with
> sched_affinity... I cc'ed you on the musl thread about this [1].
> 
> [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2019/03/15/5
> 
> For now we can leave the disable statement there. We will revisit
> when musl is fixed and/or when lttng-ust have a fallback (most likely
> to happen) when using musl.

Thanks, this is the discussion I was referring to before and I was
assuming it was leading to some of the problem you were seeing.

> > > Side note, gdb simply segfault (at start) for me on a core-image-
> > > minirmnal build using musl.
> > > How would someone open the corefile generated on the build system
> > > with the proper libs and all?
> > 
> > I saw other discussion about this so it looks like you're making
> > progress on this front. If not, Khem would be the person to ask
> > about
> > this as our musl expert...
> 
> Do you have a link to said discussion? I ended up debugging using
> print
> statement since even on Alpine gdb is "broken" (not working as
> expected). 
> I'm not sure how much time I can use on this. Will let you know if
> any progress
> is made to at least get a backtrace for the gdb coredump.

Khem is the one to talk to about this. I'm a little worried that gdb is
broken, that is something we need to investigate and clearly better
test too...

Cheers,

Richard