From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay1-d.mail.gandi.net (relay1-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8701A40099A for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2026 07:20:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.183.193 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788420047; cv=none; b=Y3e8rk5nMtZC91XOkzGapPdj3EOCSHxKU/KLhXOK3gYuv/sK3XdMhtCvhW32iW9zLtSxSa7EVVg7v3avp2b/xjZbJhOORECOhbPAlGbkmzkCkwruKeBZJ67c84LBaTAFnyQxjFHOSn6npBSQra30yMvU480VreR3Ozbq6XFBqvE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788420047; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Z9PAnHkjquclQ/RrMneUiWkYe6ezE5xtkjZ8/ChZ080=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XAHolsp4Tp51sf//R+wyoZ1FRMXS2HgrBxhPVlOeSyx722O6FD/MExx1f1XPnIDUg2ppyB/2ipYZfy4LWkIh4iSXqmPirXKOXd0UjIyzolhdDHt1LnNqT2DDzN9jIAxpZPlpjm12Eh8KXYQgrd50vh1vIwLqvKL9aStjPHt8htw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=xenomai.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xenomai.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=xenomai.org header.i=@xenomai.org header.b=ZPnCWP6j; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.183.193 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=xenomai.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xenomai.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=xenomai.org header.i=@xenomai.org header.b="ZPnCWP6j" Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7637B3ED3D; Thu, 3 Sep 2026 07:20:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenomai.org; s=gm1; t=1788420034; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject: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=wJpTLSC6FUscw/u6jo2EzrwHAMdpCPNtrv5/Aw0ErFU=; b=ZPnCWP6j7ncKT7GuYqu9IoLtL3A0fKlkcov10dZR3JAGxaJvV9kiLmFOiEpvIx7NOjIMlX Tz17pwXkr2G4ftad14JHFCeAcBAlnVHui5gw5oL1uXhvC4j/JDCc69JrAu4dGBeWyWycs9 IX+KzSQ6eR8s+OHNSbW6Fm9UKd8K7kyTXQMig8A3r7qvodNjq3EIlWjW0WjRJKvIyr0tl/ 7FOAnvWydxKQoW8vkYTwwI4EcxI9ezL8eSUyLm0+ngDFZrbxJdzp/gbjAw0ZZtm1uJLB34 6NxNzt7IAZuaOr7pqfwrMExsg7XnvPN+MAbn+jDZigTELvylraXKZ0bwA9WDZw== From: Philippe Gerum To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Xenomai Subject: Re: libevl: sched-quota test lacks success check In-Reply-To: <86d6990a-349c-42f3-a054-494422298386@siemens.com> (Jan Kiszka's message of "Mon, 31 Aug 2026 14:48:01 +0200") References: <86d6990a-349c-42f3-a054-494422298386@siemens.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.12; emacs 30.2 Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2026 09:20:33 +0200 Message-ID: <878q5issvy.fsf@xenomai.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: xenomai@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-GND-Sasl: rpm@xenomai.org X-GND-State: clean X-GND-Score: -100 X-GND-Cause: 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 Jan Kiszka writes: > Hi Philippe, > > trying to port the sched-quota fixes back to xenomai 3, I had a look at > again at the libevl test. And since [1], it always succeeds (unless some > function returns an error), no more checking of percentage boundaries. > That's not helpful for CI, though. Would it make sense to re-introduce > this, just with an exception for VM hosts? That what we do in xenomai3. > > Jan > > [1] > https://gitlab.com/Xenomai/xenomai4/libevl/-/commit/22ed65d951dd49b159e52c498dda49b2492138f7 Yes, I'd be fine with that, although the acceptable score could be arguably different even across hw platforms, so we would have to pick a conservative value to declare success/failure unless the test adapts based on some heuristics. This said, I agree that running_on_vm() is our friend to fully disable such check only on VM since the figure does not make much sense there. -- Philippe.