From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 450B6C19F2E for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:39:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D3F3C9DEF for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 14:39:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B35E33C9DD7 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 14:38:58 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-5.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.131; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DED6A615F1F for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 14:38:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 028141F38F; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:38:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1740663537; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/KjOdZYKJA0GPsNkeCQoZF51N18UM2019O3ppF+G1js=; b=uN8uvtIWfLWOmonrjU7tOaoCjccvPdjebIkZvBZY9E4eG191KXSwo0hA+CkHrc72m0sAaq ydhhVBfkpVhpVK83j86sEN3W6lGJMc35lHNDcfhx7YSTMcV0vOGoDfzFp7j6LFu0aUcPjY RPVeUwYFzraYU9NyusAmNuWzwQubu+4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1740663537; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/KjOdZYKJA0GPsNkeCQoZF51N18UM2019O3ppF+G1js=; b=omrEtGA1y9F778hWCKeUc2LaUFtL7uhcCqGVqV8QsVBLvSg2epEeJD55nt6apTYFp8EBG7 G5XPQrre0c4m3+DA== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1740663537; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/KjOdZYKJA0GPsNkeCQoZF51N18UM2019O3ppF+G1js=; b=uN8uvtIWfLWOmonrjU7tOaoCjccvPdjebIkZvBZY9E4eG191KXSwo0hA+CkHrc72m0sAaq ydhhVBfkpVhpVK83j86sEN3W6lGJMc35lHNDcfhx7YSTMcV0vOGoDfzFp7j6LFu0aUcPjY RPVeUwYFzraYU9NyusAmNuWzwQubu+4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1740663537; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/KjOdZYKJA0GPsNkeCQoZF51N18UM2019O3ppF+G1js=; b=omrEtGA1y9F778hWCKeUc2LaUFtL7uhcCqGVqV8QsVBLvSg2epEeJD55nt6apTYFp8EBG7 G5XPQrre0c4m3+DA== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD51A1376A; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:38:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id VYToNPBqwGf4ZAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:38:56 +0000 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 14:38:51 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Jan Stancek Message-ID: <20250227133851.GA3067784@pevik> References: <18cb6752b375941581aa66617e52edad0913344e.1740650948.git.jstancek@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18cb6752b375941581aa66617e52edad0913344e.1740650948.git.jstancek@redhat.com> X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-7.50 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:replyto,suse.cz:email]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] openposix: sem_timedwait: replace sleep with tst_process_state_wait3 X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi Jan, > This makes the test faster and also avoids a small race - when the > time is very close to starting new second, this makes the test use > timeout that's effectively just slightly over one second, because > nanosecond portion is always set to 0. And previously child would > sleep roughly one second. LGTM. Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel I also wonder if other tests with sleep(1) are relevant. e.g. conformance/interfaces/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock/6-2.c conformance/interfaces/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock/6-2.c (There are more sleep() uses, but I suppose others aren't relevant.) Also, some tests (e.g conformance/interfaces/clock_nanosleep/1-3.c updated few years ago) did not updated sleep() in docs comment. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp