From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (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 75AB514F9DE; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:17:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712845068; cv=none; b=RXRf4yRPksz//2agF+igmFo2zk9GNHmBLEgx3VgbeIyKU/vpsS6rgXFnzhqgjYsWB/QM0cTvLpotCq+7PbiEo8PDnV5ku1yP7l2a8vIJYSjhRt5V5fc5c9wjbxSO/byJinlBaazHXCnjWm0quyRfiw40tnQUIF3j+6pjqjZbHro= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712845068; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5x0MJ3oCoUFbEb4ZlnmuvTMNgcR/kZw65+jhCj9cLhM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mBPPj+V7ZkY8PA+6qySVIL4c5m8jKcyYjz7ON9ZHwWMAuJK7ZEHmc+oAvna8RtYdgjWID9e0AaGLFv99cZZPStNJB2ez5EwOTL/Z2Fe8wNlAC3hfLQ+V2LmE/pQRZuqTCwqceSbNYCrUgMKbafcsDKt8VAaqmHMx2zJ/I/gdMUI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=4kjBAKBi; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=YYbHCtpq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="4kjBAKBi"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="YYbHCtpq" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1712845064; 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=MuXafFQRttff2dvLyAB+pKNoH9ktNnb1Y8CD+U2h2iw=; b=4kjBAKBiMhS93Omd+VB6jNMZSvXVrGz1kFAWONWeGzGTKO5eL7Gdl+KiPuK7RGKvdUg2IY WG0QwXptatQ1UrCGETre4IlEb7zLIKlRHI8oYc7s3ACVAXV2QrmY+KVIEC7DsdRdNpPnuf exnkzDLQiU8wOKWXSena8KavR2cxIpBkQ/r54FAmrWtt6KDn6K2Ny8vvGzYvlMTL48Pk9Z B5UCuPojjhHjyDyc1EJzhoa7ovOEMaCOzfScvsj8UMM/b3w2p+gCwerH+ZcucRCVbXFJSX K5IUjobSD+323YETmKHV9rrBRM+O35ydu6xN+g7fUKn5kD3bxrVFk1PKBXCy4Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1712845064; 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=MuXafFQRttff2dvLyAB+pKNoH9ktNnb1Y8CD+U2h2iw=; b=YYbHCtpqVdErGD/xWX7jCfyMJ7RKGG5XMnFy87uCVQbX8RlmIzJNMA5yAu3RiqBkuQnuGD NtDUNUM+6hyyESAQ== To: Mark Brown , Oleg Nesterov Cc: John Stultz , Marco Elver , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov , kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, Edward Liaw , Carlos Llamas , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/timers/posix_timers: reimplement check_timer_distribution() In-Reply-To: References: <87sf02bgez.ffs@tglx> <87r0fmbe65.ffs@tglx> <87o7aqb6uw.ffs@tglx> <87frw2axv0.ffs@tglx> <20240404145408.GD7153@redhat.com> <87le5t9f14.ffs@tglx> <20240406150950.GA3060@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:17:43 +0200 Message-ID: <87il0o0yrc.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Thu, Apr 11 2024 at 13:44, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 05:09:51PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> Thomas says: >> >> The signal distribution test has a tendency to hang for a long >> time as the signal delivery is not really evenly distributed. In >> fact it might never be distributed across all threads ever in >> the way it is written. >> >> To me even the >> >> This primarily tests that the kernel does not favour any one. > > Further to my previous mail it's also broken the arm64 selftest builds, > they use kselftest.h with nolibc in order to test low level > functionality mainly used by libc implementations and nolibc doesn't > implement uname(): > > In file included from za-fork.c:12: > ../../kselftest.h:433:17: error: variable has incomplete type 'struct utsname' > struct utsname info; > ^ > ../../kselftest.h:433:9: note: forward declaration of 'struct utsname' > struct utsname info; > ^ > ../../kselftest.h:435:6: error: call to undeclared function 'uname'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] > if (uname(&info) || sscanf(info.release, "%u.%u.", &major, &minor) != 2) > ^ > ../../kselftest.h:435:22: error: call to undeclared function 'sscanf'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit function declarations [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] > if (uname(&info) || sscanf(info.release, "%u.%u.", &major, &minor) != 2) Grrr. Let me stare at this.