This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Fix race in tst-mqueue5
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, "Paul E. Murphy" <murphyp at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Cc: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:40:21 -0200
- Subject: Re: Fix race in tst-mqueue5
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <569552C6 dot 8050200 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <5695AF3D dot 3020303 at redhat dot com> <56965885 dot 4020300 at linaro dot org> <56965B12 dot 2070904 at redhat dot com>
On 13-01-2016 12:11, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 01/13/2016 09:00 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>> While I agree that any fix that makes tst-mqueue5 fail less spuriously is a good
>>> thing, I'm curious about your review of the test as a whole (now that I've looked
>>> at it again).
>> I would say to just remove the spurious synchronization issues, specially the ones
>> that might arise with the use of 'sleep' in bad ways.
> Does that mean you'd rather see a more comprehensive fix?
> The test still uses sleep() in one place.
I would prefer a comprehensible test that do raise false positives, even by
a slight chance (such as the case). This is also similar to the nanosleep
regression testcase  that generate different opinions whether a possible
racy testcase yields any meaningful validation.
At first I did no oppose, but recently I noted that potentially racy testcase
are mainly ignored when testers see spurious fails (the tst-mqueue5 is an
example, this issue exists for a long time).