This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v2] Remove signal handling for nanosleep (bug 16364)
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:42:07 -0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Remove signal handling for nanosleep (bug 16364)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1447160038-11754-1-git-send-email-adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org> <mvmy4e6yoxv dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <5641F136 dot 9030204 at linaro dot org> <mvmtwouylw0 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <56422DD1 dot 3070406 at redhat dot com>
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
>