From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:50:23 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/3] shell: Introduce TST_TIMEOUT variable In-Reply-To: References: <20190913125823.17314-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20190913125823.17314-3-pvorel@suse.cz> <20190917165520.GA30320@x230> <20190918082421.GA11711@x230> Message-ID: <20190918095023.GA31233@x230> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Li, > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 4:24 PM Petr Vorel wrote: > > ... > > > So, maybe that could be as a reason to disable float support for > > > $LTP_TIMEOUT_MUL? > > Maybe I'm missing something, therefore explaining the intent of the code. > > (int was handled in if tst_is_int "$LTP_TIMEOUT_MUL"; then): > I'm not blaming the int/float judgment, there is no problem. My concern is: > If the $LTP_TIMEOUT_MUL is float and awk command is missing, how things > will be going? > It will break at: > tst_test_cmds awk > right? Yes. The concern is described in the commit message (but it should also be in wiki page I guess): you want float => you need awk. You don't have float, just set it as int (which will affect also C). Does it make sense? Is it useful? > Given that break on float number handling, why not declare only support > integer for $LTP_TIMEOUT_MUL? Sure, we can do it. But I propose to do it for C as well otherwise setup valid for C will be breaking shell. But that's a backward incompatibility change. That's why I suggested IMHO the least intrusive change (but maybe I'm wrong). Anyone else having strong opinion? > I hope I explained clearly this time, haha ;-) Sure, sorry to be slow :). Kind regards, Petr