[PATCH v3] i386: Use pthread_barrier for synchronization on tst-bz21269

[Adhemerval Zanella Netto]

On 02/03/23 17:21, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> writes:
>>> +      /* Give the thread a chance to get into it's busy loop.  */
>>> +      usleep (5);
>>
>> ... I shivers every time I see sleep used as synchronization mechanism, since
>> most likely in some environment the sleep won't work as expected due
>> scheduling pressuer and we will end up with a false positive.
> 
> Yeah, I'm using as just a "yeild if you can" operation.  The code works
> without it, but not in the way the test is intended.
> 
>> I am wondering if it would be better to just remove this test saying we
>> can't really make it work reliable.
> 
> I'm not opposed to removing it.  Even with the fixed I put in, the test
> is still more likely to fault "for some reason" than for the expected
> reason.
> 

Ok, this LGTM then.  The patchwork false positive failures is being really
annoying.