From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Received: from albireo.enyo.de (albireo.enyo.de [37.24.231.21])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF4A43858D28
	for <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 10:01:39 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org AF4A43858D28
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deneb.enyo.de
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=deneb.enyo.de
Received: from [172.17.203.2] (port=44993 helo=deneb.enyo.de)
	by albireo.enyo.de ([172.17.140.2]) with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256)
	id 1odqMM-003Gws-EP; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 10:01:38 +0000
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>)
	id 1odqMM-000A3S-4h; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 12:01:38 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Yu Chien Peter Lin <peterlin@andestech.com>
Cc: <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,  fweimer@redhat.com,
  ycliang@andestech.com,  alankao@andestech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nptl: Fix typo in error message
References: <20220929085738.12027-1-peterlin@andestech.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 12:01:38 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20220929085738.12027-1-peterlin@andestech.com> (Yu Chien Peter
	Lin's message of "Thu, 29 Sep 2022 16:57:38 +0800")
Message-ID: <87o7uy7b3x.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>

* Yu Chien Peter Lin:

> Signed-off-by: Yu Chien Peter Lin <peterlin@andestech.com>
> ---
>  nptl/tst-setuid2.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/nptl/tst-setuid2.c b/nptl/tst-setuid2.c
> index aff3b1a97d..fed2671b01 100644
> --- a/nptl/tst-setuid2.c
> +++ b/nptl/tst-setuid2.c
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ run_on_thread (void (*func) (void))
>  
>    ret = pthread_cond_signal (&cond_send);
>    if (ret != 0)
> -    FAIL ("pthread_mutex_lock (%s): %d", __func__, ret);
> +    FAIL ("pthread_cond_signal (send): %d", ret);
>  
>    ret = pthread_mutex_lock (&mutex);
>    if (ret != 0)
> @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ run_on_thread (void (*func) (void))
>      {
>        ret = pthread_cond_wait (&cond_recv, &mutex);
>        if (ret != 0)
> -	FAIL ("pthread_mutex_wait (%s): %d", __func__, ret);
> +	FAIL ("pthread_cond_wait (recv): %d", ret);
>      }
>    ret = pthread_mutex_unlock (&mutex);
>    if (ret != 0)

Maybe introduce xpthread_cond_signal in a separate patch and use
xpthread_cond_signal and xpthread_cond_wait instead?  The latter
already exists.