Re: Should the kernel perf interface be available on autobuilders?

[Lluís Vilanova <vilanova@ac.upc.edu>]

Petter Reinholdtsen writes:

> [Julien Cristau]
>> I think both are valid configurations, and your package shouldn't make
>> an assumption one way or the other.

> Working perf interface is not really an assumtion.  It is a requirement
> for the package to work.  Coz is a profiler, and the profiler collect
> information using the kernel perf API.  There is no alternative way to
> gather the profiling information.  The only alternatives if the perf
> interface is not available is to not verify that the build resulted in a
> working program or always assume the build was successful.  Neither are
> good options when the goal is to ensure broken binaries do not make it
> into the archive.

AFAIK, a paranoid level of 2 for perf is enough to not make coz's tests break
(level 3 or above seems to effectively disable the perf interface). Also, it
seems that build machines for all other architectures have a perf paranoid level
of 2 or lower.

Cheers,
  Lluis