From: "Ricardo B. Marlière via ltp" <ltp@lists.linux.it>
To: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>,
"Linux Test Project" <ltp@lists.linux.it>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] open_posix: Update pthread_rwlock_rdlock 2nd assertion
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 15:13:27 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DA16X0C1V0BA.L4ETKIDDFBNV@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250520-fixes-pthread_rwlock_rdlock-v1-1-402ee45114cc@suse.com>
On Tue May 20, 2025 at 3:10 PM -03, Ricardo B. Marlière wrote:
> From: Ricardo B. Marlière <rbm@suse.com>
>
> The pthread_rwlock_rdlock/2-*.c tests are broken because they rely on an
> old version of the POSIX standard which says:
>
> If the Thread Execution Scheduling option is supported, and the threads
> involved in the lock are executing with the scheduling policies
> SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR, the calling thread shall not acquire the lock if
> a writer holds the lock or if writers of higher or equal priority are
> blocked on the lock; otherwise, the calling thread shall acquire the
> lock.
>
> Whereas the new version says:
>
> If the Thread Execution Scheduling option is supported, and the threads
> that hold or are blocked on the lock are executing with the scheduling
> policies SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR, the calling thread shall not acquire the
> lock if a writer holds the lock or if the calling thread does not already
> hold a read lock and writers of higher or equal priority are blocked on
> the lock; otherwise, the calling thread shall acquire the lock.
>
> This behaviour is not supported by default on GNU/Linux, so add a call to
> Glibc pthread_rwlockattr_setkind_np() to set the correct lock kind as a
> prerequisite to the 2-1.c and 2-2.c tests.
>
> Link: https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1111
> Link: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13701
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo B. Marlière <rbm@suse.com>
> ---
> .../interfaces/pthread_rwlock_rdlock/2-1.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
> .../interfaces/pthread_rwlock_rdlock/2-2.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
> .../interfaces/pthread_rwlock_rdlock/2-3.c | 13 +++++++------
> .../interfaces/pthread_rwlock_rdlock/assertions.xml | 15 ++++++++-------
> 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
Hi Cyril,
I think this one might be worth including in the new release!
Thanks,
- Ricardo.
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-20 18:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-20 18:10 [LTP] [PATCH] open_posix: Update pthread_rwlock_rdlock 2nd assertion Ricardo B. Marlière via ltp
2025-05-20 18:13 ` Ricardo B. Marlière via ltp [this message]
2025-09-19 11:54 ` Cyril Hrubis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DA16X0C1V0BA.L4ETKIDDFBNV@suse.com \
--to=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=rbm@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox