From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:33:43 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/3] syscalls/tgkill01: add new test In-Reply-To: References: <1552457573-1354-1-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org> <1552457573-1354-2-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org> <20190314122232.GA17823@rei.lan> <20190314135837.GA2536@rei.lan> <20190315100824.GA5383@rei> Message-ID: <20190315113343.GD5383@rei> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > > > I am not sure if this warning message is desired for test-cases which > > > needs to wait on checkpoints irrespective of signals like this > > > tgkill01 test-case. > > > > Agreed, it's not an error condition, it's just a coincidence that most > > of the tests does not get signals when they sleep on futex, otherwise > > thing would crash and burn. So I would argue that retrying on EINTR is > > actually a bug fix rather than anything else. > > > > Okay, here I'm not insist to print the warning. But it's only use for hint > on that worst situation which you were mentioned. If the checkpoint got > signal leads to never timeout and test eventually killed by test lib. That > would hard to know what happened at that moment. My concern is the > situation is hard to reproduce later so just want to print more useful > messeges:). As for now that's only a hypotetical corner case, someone would have to send signals to such process sleeping on the checkpoint in a loop for that to happen. The problem is that printing any messages when checkpoint was interrupted by signal would lead to even greater confusion for tests that actually have to send signals to such processes. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz