From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Loosen the limits of time/tst-cpuclock1.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:22:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7a35de28-1c6d-4afd-1c25-d11564b32768@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cb078007-fbcf-3c4f-96aa-2259a112782b@linaro.org>
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:
* 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* clock_gettime of dead child where clock is no longer valid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?
--
Cheers,
Carlos.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-29 17:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-28 8:58 Stefan Liebler
2020-08-28 12:29 ` Florian Weimer
2020-08-31 12:57 ` Lucas A. M. Magalhaes
2020-08-31 12:59 ` Florian Weimer
2020-09-02 16:10 ` Stefan Liebler
2020-09-21 11:28 ` Florian Weimer
2020-09-29 13:53 ` Lucas A. M. Magalhaes
2020-09-29 14:01 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2020-09-29 17:22 ` Carlos O'Donell [this message]
2020-09-30 11:48 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2020-10-19 14:48 ` Stefan Liebler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7a35de28-1c6d-4afd-1c25-d11564b32768@redhat.com \
--to=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).