From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4B95208D.7020809@domain.hid> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:06:37 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4B90ED0A.40101@domain.hid> <4B90F2D3.8020508@domain.hid> <4B91290C.7070005@domain.hid> <4B9131B4.6060105@domain.hid> <4B913C71.4060006@domain.hid> <4B914107.3000108@domain.hid> <4B9222D1.1000207@domain.hid> <4B924586.1060400@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4B924586.1060400@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC][PATCH v2] Allow for deregistering current mode user space address List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai-core Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> I think my workflow was misleading regarding this. Not necessarily all >> stuff I push into my 'for-upstream' branch is done with all tests at the >> time when I push. Official pull request mails are supposed to mark this. >> I'm pushing to save my work and, of course, to expose it. So I >> appreciate comments, but I surely don't expect them within minutes. > > No. You still refuse to acknowledge the truth: I receive pull requests > for untested stuff. Read John's mail again. He cherry picked changes, > for which I received a pull request, he ran the mutex-torture tests, > which the patchset had modified, and the test was not passing. So, the > conclusion is that you did not run mutex-torture, which the commit had > modified before sending the pull request. I did not have to dig long in > the git logs to find this example. It was just yesterday. Think about it. > > That is precisely the situation I want to avoid from now on. Ok. It turns out that yes, the timed mutex tests had a bug, but probably only visible on uniprocessor machines. And I guess you test on SMP machines. So, my apologies, the patch was tested, not enough, but tested. >> PS: Note that this u_mode fix exposed an issue of the sigtest: >> cancel_with_signals fails if there is some TSD destructor registered >> that issues a Xenomai syscall. Not sure yet if it is a fundamental issue >> or just related to the test itself. > > The sigtest test probably assumes that no parasite syscall occurs. Yet > another reason for not using this u_mode implementation. Remove that test case. I do not know what it was testing anyway. -- Gilles.