[PATCH] Loosen the limits of time/tst-cpuclock1.

[Adhemerval Zanella]

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 * clock_gettime of dead child where clock is no longer valid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.