pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] pcp updates: qa

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lukas Berk <lberk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp updates: qa
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:02:04 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5578F57A.6020600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <87h9qft52c.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <5578F57A.6020600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: 50obJwMuVTig2FCozb9EnyRZzawTTw==
Thread-topic: pcp updates: qa

----- Original Message -----
> Lukas,
> 
> I pulled these into my tree, ran QA (67,1782,216,974, -g pmda.proc and
> -g pmda.linux) on a x86_64 system and reviewed the code.
> 
> All the QA passes ... that's good.

Thanks Ken, running with 'em here too & all good.  I'll push my final
QA fix updates shortly as well, if you could start running with these
- they'll likely be the last from me for this release.

> A couple of comments on the code ...

> If PROC_PAGESIZE and LINUX_PAGESIZE are _only_ for QA testing, then I
> think it would be worth adding a comment to this effect in the PMDA
> source code, and perhaps changing the env varnames to

They are only for QA.  I'll add a comment (Lukas is gone for today).

> PCPQA_PROC_PAGESIZE and PCPQA_LINUX_PAGESIZE to make it clearer and
> further reduce the probability of an unintended name clash in a
> production environment.

It follows the convention set by PROC_STATSPATH & other similar existing
env vars, so unless we want to go retrofit that onto those (and others
over in the python/perl PMDAs) - which maybe we do - I suggest we stick
with 'em for now, and maybe tackle them all together next release?

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>