From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1697AEB64DC for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:09:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36D83CB948 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:09:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (in-4.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02CB73C99FC for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:09:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 364EF10007C1 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:09:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C54D51FD70; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:09:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1689073773; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to: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=qP8iJoEwrM9nE3xg2GFqORLU+GRDpdupi033QOUfm6A=; b=bLGZlk6gyYoBr1cjmsnjBW/s2M1icDS9mYcFQ/GQ1TF5f8uU7vD6ufO7WbWoWCu9Y8z498 tzxoV2gllZOPyzDoKrbgIr2hVJsUSAFXZWBqAg1daolUF7lmNht77UUL5vn9nEu7xyL0Db 1VGXf7VC6rRi2sTng6Bc3jGTJQThfN0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1689073773; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to: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=qP8iJoEwrM9nE3xg2GFqORLU+GRDpdupi033QOUfm6A=; b=gyWEDkGPcs9CVAJQ31frl2m/0Cx0lnjlemGY1BLbLNRYtvGgZOZXXF7ZYo7WObzZiGCvLA PpM0MpLqP1NvpJCA== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E8C61390F; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:09:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 5yd0JW04rWRrEgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:09:33 +0000 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:09:27 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: <20230711110927.GA722516@pevik> References: <20230510124206.19627-1-andrea.cervesato@suse.de> <20230510124206.19627-4-andrea.cervesato@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.1 at in-4.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v7 3/6] Refactor mqns_03 using new LTP API X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > Hi! > > > I do not think that we need atomicity here, the cleanup code does not > > > run concurently at all as the cleanup in the parent is triggered after > > > the child did exit. I suppose that instead we need to set the mq_freed > > > to be volatile because it's shared memory which may change at any > > > change, so we need to tell that to the compiler. > > That's fine, but I followed suggestions in the reviews. I think that > > having 3 people reviewing the same patch doesn't help the development > > process. Now I'm not sure who I should follow :-) > It's actually the other way around, the more people look at the code the > better, at least that way we have potential to catch more problems > earlier. And if the reviewers disagree, let them fight for the right > answer. +1 Kind regards, Petr > I think that in this case this all can be actually simplified and we can > get rid of the mq_freed flag as I tried to outline below. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp