Re: [PATCH] Loosen the limits of time/tst-cpuclock1.

[Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.ibm.com>]

On 9/30/20 1:48 PM, Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29/09/2020 14:22, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 9/29/20 10:01 AM, Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29/09/2020 10:53, Lucas A. M. Magalhaes via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>>> Quoting Florian Weimer (2020-09-21 08:28:31)
>>>>> * Stefan Liebler:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How do we want to proceed here:
>>>>>> - Shall we just loosen the limits?
>>>>>> - Shall we remove the whole test?
>>>>>> - Shall we remove only the first check which compares nanosleep vs
>>>>>> clock_gettime (child_clock, before|after)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I lean towards removing both time/tst-cpuclock1 and time/tst-cpuclock2.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't oppose against removing them, also.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I also lean to remove these tests. If we need to keep adjusting the time
>>> limits depending of the underlying architecture the tests might loose
>>> their intention to check the interface and/or not indicate a possible
>>> regression.
>>
>> The tests should be removed because they contain *non-timing* related
>> regression tests for:
> 
> I think you meant 'should *not* be remove* based on the points below.
> 
>>
>> * clock_getcpuclockid vs. ENOSYS / ESRCH / EPERM
>> * clock_getcpuclockid vs. valid child
>> * clock_gettime of dead child where clock is no longer valid
>>
>> I don't see any other tests that test for that.
>>
>> If we want we can just strip out the time-dependent parts of the tests?
>>
> 
> This is better idea indeed.
> 

Hi,

Sorry for the long delay.
According to all the feedback, I've kept the test itself and removed two
of the time-dependent checks.
Please have a look at v2 of the patch:
"[PATCH v2] Loosen the limits of time/tst-cpuclock1."
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2020-October/118779.html

Thanks,
Stefan