[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140805144108.GK9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 16:41:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v6] locking/selftest: Support queued rwlock
On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 08:07:28AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > Maybe I wasn't clear; but I meant you should extend the lock tests to
> > cover the full qrwlock semantics.
> >
> > That means we also need tests like:
> >
> > RL(X1);
> > IRQ_ENTER();
> > RL(X2);
> > IRQ_EXIT();
> >
> > To fully validate that in_interrupt exception to fairness etc..
>
> A bit off topic for this patch, however relevant for tests in general.
> Is there a reason why these locking selftests need to be under lib?
> Can they be consolidated under tools/testing/selftests?
tools/ seems wrong as its very much not userspace.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists