From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot1-x335.google.com (mail-ot1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::335]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51B073858D33 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 18:01:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 51B073858D33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Received: by mail-ot1-x335.google.com with SMTP id a4-20020a056830008400b0069432af1380so9426915oto.13 for ; Wed, 08 Mar 2023 10:01:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1678298497; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:organization:from:references :cc:to:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9XtZqw1qbZUAF3JZRpAYeQZYF3v1dUshShlXcaCK03c=; b=ijV5k+z8qYUowpF0r8X1LuFTaE1dzmJVICFo8jRO+uCSVvmSTwLI3sHGUfKtmlsdvJ 4+q/zH3qFLw0xsVut8+sD+IyMyKAtvL8vv5POOKzby8eJZ0tamWaleOVYQ7TzcoGizSY 8Zw0oqEME+BS847RwATPgprKOLsxUDKyFIThekSF7PNwY/BFAcNtR/hCA8wSSXRBUrjh dTfGBB69mCu+A6jPDLDEGh8rmRQr6RLZhBWiOhdMXhSR/mpkXMgGjlgKYGiXfvywXCNP VhS4rOeJp96qP9zxwWwPWw+4I9UgCU5kp8Pl+leg8ApNgSaOq0Na0GX9Ft4eU5MKu40s 3e7A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678298497; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:organization:from:references :cc:to:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=9XtZqw1qbZUAF3JZRpAYeQZYF3v1dUshShlXcaCK03c=; b=EXyqTZ1bXtKIZqxOlwt+yeFA/sEm6BK3hZTx6xd5T1ImRC3ZeothrYrvVymzZ1tFO0 3Sodb2URHQuP0akI2WejgoTW9HeWUKEydAszl+aUIar6pgFxnd8j4eQWDoYo2pzusUw6 75ZCqiCfmbXbBKiEj5kmvjQ6r0nRKjbio0LhIaJENBMUX3vZ7EyzDMbVs9Sw1PRmS1OO 6tJSDQLO+ndyVwngRe1XEfPapcBEV5VibdsaAH/nuviLStc49CPvntLfp4xqs3HnS1Di ajk56BFFAKRmTJdTokTuchY2idc1VT9wzYKSD/t2FPICsk5xI1hHJQTwCbaM+qDLTEGl PsUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXs4RIim5qaNKQoDdGanwuwsUnddP21Xkj+GJxx7e2C+TRaFyAq C8ilp6u5JOU1Y/BgSu55/Nfqr9vcWqJKagDZ+yPDeQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8UBslu9PJ07kkc5VDeZxHXFQIUjTZXKj6z1lltd8C0SBgO7JCH0DWZm1TIthUuxOr5WR7Xcw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:2378:b0:68b:ca45:786c with SMTP id r24-20020a056830237800b0068bca45786cmr9629931oth.22.1678298497138; Wed, 08 Mar 2023 10:01:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2804:1b3:a7c0:544b:655d:5559:758d:90f7? ([2804:1b3:a7c0:544b:655d:5559:758d:90f7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t5-20020a9d5905000000b0068d3f341dd9sm6651078oth.62.2023.03.08.10.01.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Mar 2023 10:01:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <432b24f2-3943-3156-f4bb-4e8aeb2089cf@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 15:01:34 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] i386: Use pthread_barrier for synchronization on tst-bz21269 Content-Language: en-US To: DJ Delorie Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: From: Adhemerval Zanella Netto Organization: Linaro In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 02/03/23 17:21, DJ Delorie wrote: > Adhemerval Zanella Netto writes: >>> + /* Give the thread a chance to get into it's busy loop. */ >>> + usleep (5); >> >> ... I shivers every time I see sleep used as synchronization mechanism, since >> most likely in some environment the sleep won't work as expected due >> scheduling pressuer and we will end up with a false positive. > > Yeah, I'm using as just a "yeild if you can" operation. The code works > without it, but not in the way the test is intended. > >> I am wondering if it would be better to just remove this test saying we >> can't really make it work reliable. > > I'm not opposed to removing it. Even with the fixed I put in, the test > is still more likely to fault "for some reason" than for the expected > reason. > Ok, this LGTM then. The patchwork false positive failures is being really annoying.