[PATCH] Increase the amount of data tested in stdio-common/tst-fwrite-bz29459.c

[Stefan Liebler]

On 2/24/25 10:34, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Stefan Liebler:
> 
>> On 2/14/25 21:08, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
>>> Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 14/02/25 10:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I believe Tulio's patch achieves that.  The idea is to stay close to the
>>>>> reported reproducer.
>>>>
>>>> The test issues a lot of fwrite in hope it would fill pipe buffer in time,
>>>> I think forcing a failure without resorting to system specific is kinda
>>>> more robust.
>>>>
>>>> But I don't really opposes to this issue, I just think my idea is simpler
>>>> to trigger the issue we are trying to test.
>>>
>>> OK. I pushed this as 1b6f868625403d6b7683af840e87d2b18d5d7731.
>>>
>>> Thank you all!
>>>
>>
>> On s390x, I also got those fails when the system is on load.
>> With this patch, so far, I don't see the fails.
>>
>> But I see similar fail in stdio-common/tst-fwrite-pipe:
>> error: tst-fwrite-pipe.c:125: fwrite should have returned an error, but
>> it didn't
>>
>> Does it make sense to apply the same change in tst-fwrite-pipe.c?
>> At least, when I adjust it and run the test in a loop of 5000 while e.g.
>> glibc is building/testing in parallel, I don't see a fail anymore.
> 
> Makes sense to me.  But I don't see a patch?
Yes, you are right. It was a general question.

Now, here is the patch:
[PATCH] Increase the amount of data tested in stdio-common/tst-fwrite-pipe.c
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2025-February/164920.html

Thanks,
Stefan