From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.148]) (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 3D918224B1C for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 16:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736439406; cv=none; b=a9TN5GTfywCDQwDQK74Gu0SKkjINPBLZrAxrskHPzy0HRhgmT+/oyHvuG7oqO0skb5/PVwg9uT+APlEOMVLaAva2rnwLDKsEFXQ56RBnSbN6vFBnQrcSGau5kANUajAnFsDIcE/g86zE/Ju9WVNZbGac67RDje6OrE4dp1szvoI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736439406; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lo/GMcdROAS7umpM0FE1qnwXz3KTihJhW5iaoLRyI94=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=rspI4CfUgFWViMNKJkUVu7T3IWZ798ekgFW87BMB/ES0vAC/HXIN+oddUh//zSdzFaNWjnOaoitcp0zzZvhIzTuEWXKIiaw94BuB7N6rytRCrfhFxZQEtbLGpoTa4KeQtTkDi8X+p0U1NDj4ORM/a9k75hlhV9cAmbtO51uuOkc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=bm4YlVzG; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=bBCjzAdg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="bm4YlVzG"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="bBCjzAdg" Received: from phl-compute-07.internal (phl-compute-07.phl.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DB613801AB; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-07.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 Jan 2025 11:16:43 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1736439403; x=1736525803; bh=pmCS5oD46s vodRhTZG5HkyhwkcPXdo1m+/VoZ8LHMsU=; b=bm4YlVzGW5ZdVbYaDUvQW9R8A3 8/j2M6EJCejQ4BFbHYlptHiMnVuvwEWDijXDzIn5dkfz1nRtAKQkRNqaA7504T6f AwfTGkm5s/SxXDt1fNdx82N6zxEgimeW4XbcAUFu7SdUIYIDXJwQe4SR7CS9ojqZ 4qDTsRqDTtDDb6MZssHnYve7MPIaYrFbLlDBNvuhOtkhwPyAqjiop6wcXSa7LUh9 b5iYvWTt2MMh90gDjV7w7qnhN7sr6i17+ZNA833kImEDf19bG+yeWtKBCxdqsAJe AeE0SZdj09bTEhlLDpXtnQTve3sebJ54hbCtYAcXcK7uBv86BBNR26q/3cnw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1736439403; x=1736525803; bh=pmCS5oD46svodRhTZG5HkyhwkcPXdo1m+/V oZ8LHMsU=; b=bBCjzAdgwAOC9BAQO43Vm7WLd62JXNH5X17zDITmY31Ke1X2YOJ 6a0ff2i+sK0f09q2ozEqAryLI9pR5HNcce3lmOzWdzWU/qeGxMJ1nXRU/RngVR7N dT9CI+86+UFIVsPFDOxO0gIhhpYGfctqrStbyGj19D3ALhJ9HY6va+KhqlBSpaeX HUydy6dSOw3ESORn8jOqPDIqyboHUKssQ6Hh9sO13+cCLrfu4JE7gRJ7BEvZTlU1 gBdhUH+CjSEuBP4kAue16Ng7hI9LcjAAKry8JPAQ8ugerrtsmUgYubykIuLryNdy 4U2cNShSPTtbGcGSIC0gPSQrULZwalCKPQw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddrudegiedgkeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertden ucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogi drtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeej leeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrg hmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghp thhtohephedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphgvfhhfsehpvghffh drnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhg vghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehphhhilhhlihhprdifohhougesug hunhgvlhhmrdhorhhgrdhukhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgt ohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:16:42 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Patrick Steinhardt , git@vger.kernel.org, Phillip Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] t7422: fix flaky test caused by buffered stdout In-Reply-To: <20250109071707.GA2735258@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 9 Jan 2025 02:17:07 -0500") References: <20250103-b4-pks-ci-fixes-v1-0-a9bb95dff833@pks.im> <20250103-b4-pks-ci-fixes-v1-2-a9bb95dff833@pks.im> <20250103181739.GA2527684@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20250107023904.GB2363@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20250109071707.GA2735258@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 08:16:41 -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 Jeff King writes: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 09:47:43AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 09:39:04PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: >> > So I don't really see a way to do this robustly. >> >> I think I found a way, which goes back to the inital idea of just >> generating heaps of submodules. >> ... > Your solution looks nice. It's O(1) processes, since all of the heavy > lifting is done by the long gitmodules file and tree. > > I was going to suggest that you could reduce the number of submodules by > giving them large paths (or large checked-out branch names) to get more > bytes of output per submodule. But there is not really much point. What > you have should run quite quickly. ;-) >> I'm a bit torn though. The required setup is quite complex, and I wonder >> whether it is really worth it just to test this edge case. On the other >> hand it is there to cover a recent fix in 082caf527e (submodule status: >> propagate SIGPIPE, 2024-09-20), so losing the test coverage isn't all >> that great, either. And keeping the race is not an option to me, either. >> >> So I'm inclined to go with the below version. WDYT? > > Yeah, I was tempted after my last email to suggest just ditching the > test, too. :) But I think what you've written here is a good approach. > I'll look carefully over what you sent in the v3 series. Yeah. Thanks, both.