This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v2] Remove signal handling for nanosleep (bug 16364)
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:48:01 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Remove signal handling for nanosleep (bug 16364)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1447160038-11754-1-git-send-email-adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org> <mvmy4e6yoxv dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <5641F136 dot 9030204 at linaro dot org> <mvmtwouylw0 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de>
On 11/10/2015 03:22 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> writes:
>
>> That's the hole points of the previous discussion in v1 patch while
>> Florian also pointed this racy. He neither I could devise a race-free
>> testcase to check for this issue so my questioning was if someone have
>> a way to remove the race or if we really should push for this test.
>
> A racy test is as good as a non-existing test. Everyone will ignore it.
I disagree very strongly. It depends on the frequency of the race, and
it which direction it errs (FAIL even without the bug, or PASS with the
bug). Some properties are impossible to test without theoretic races.
It really depends on the rate of inappropriate FAILs whether such tests
have value or not.
Florian