Re: [PATCH v2] Remove signal handling for nanosleep (bug 16364)

[Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>]

On 10-11-2015 15:48, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 03:22 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> writes:
>>
>>> That's the hole points of the previous discussion in v1 patch while
>>> Florian also pointed this racy.  He neither I could devise a race-free
>>> testcase to check for this issue so my questioning was if someone have
>>> a way to remove the race or if we really should push for this test. 
>>
>> A racy test is as good as a non-existing test.  Everyone will ignore it.
> 
> I disagree very strongly.  It depends on the frequency of the race, and
> it which direction it errs (FAIL even without the bug, or PASS with the
> bug).  Some properties are impossible to test without theoretic races.
> It really depends on the rate of inappropriate FAILs whether such tests
> have value or not.

Regarding to this specific test, IMHO I would prefer to not add it since
it clearly a kernel issue which has been fixed in a long time and it is
quite unlike to regress.  Also, any regression would be flagged a kernel
defect and I do not see this being deployed in any kernel release.

Now regarding the racy test, I see we need to assess by case basis. I
also I do not see strong reasoning to block this patch altogether: we
can evaluate/push the version v3 which do not have the testcase and 
if we decide this race-test is valuable I can prepare another patch 
to add it.  

> 
> Florian
>