From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (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 47D684CE1D for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:18:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="QCdynSLC" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F811C951F; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:18:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=+LbJJ+M/Rx/lbGxh4Z0X1EhdsP027kM1P8QY15 jHwWg=; b=QCdynSLCxKXDvlagujRX3UO+35HD5zAz3SRyVzLkRGH7zP51TXiI2h Ie1IRdyCKvs4emQNywCjWHWA446HqVShGmVBEe9R/J54qCj6RFQYz01+Cwvm+DIp DKu1WOX7J90D/n23bIWfdYsdZhck1GDrCuTCEIGgBey5BkTXb5ano= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83181C951E; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:18:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.200.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 09C621C951D; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:18:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] t5309: run expected-to-fail `index-pack`s with `--threads=1` In-Reply-To: <588de2e4f16ab090ff477088084e0b81d9615ec5.1704909216.git.me@ttaylorr.com> (Taylor Blau's message of "Wed, 10 Jan 2024 12:55:30 -0500") References: <588de2e4f16ab090ff477088084e0b81d9615ec5.1704909216.git.me@ttaylorr.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:18:52 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3D587CBA-B006-11EE-9555-78DCEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Taylor Blau writes: > But that requires us to tweak production code (albeit at a negligible > cost) in order to appease LSan in this narrow circumstance. Another > approach is to simply run these expected-to-fail `index-pack` > invocations with `--threads=1` so that we bypass the above issue > entirely. But of course, multi-threaded operation that production folks use will not be tested at all with the alternative. > The downside of that approach is that the test doesn't match our > production code as well as it did before (where we might have run those > same `index-pack` invocations with >1 thread, depending on how many CPUs > the testing machine has). The risk there is that we might miss a > regression that would leave us in an inconsistent state. But that feels > rather unlikely in practice, and there are many other tests related to > `index-pack` in the suite. As long as "make sure we spawn all of them atmically" has negligible downside, I'd rather take that approach. Buying predictability with minimum cost is quite attractive. Thanks.