From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Loosen the limits of time/tst-cpuclock1.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 08:48:02 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f1b35850-767a-d0e3-0b01-701af0aa197f@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7a35de28-1c6d-4afd-1c25-d11564b32768@redhat.com>
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 * clock_gettime of dead child where clock is no longer valid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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-30 11:48 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
2020-09-30 11:48 ` Adhemerval Zanella [this message]
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=f1b35850-767a-d0e3-0b01-701af0aa197f@linaro.org \
--to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=carlos@redhat.com \
--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).