[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1b33e341-e86d-4647-bcbe-38d2667cb891@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:45:34 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] selftests: Line buffer test program's stdout
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 03:32:19PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 15:16, Mark Brown wrote:
> > so that if setbuf
> > isn't installed on the target system or the tests are run standalone we
> > don't run into issues there. Even if the test isn't corrupting data
> > having things unbuffered is going to be good for making sure we don't
> > drop any output if the test dies.
> Note that currently I've set stdbuf to encourage line buffering rather than no
> buffering. Are you saying no buffering is preferred? I took the view that line
> buffering is a good middle ground, and and aligns with what people see when
> developing and running the program manually in the terminal.
TBH with the way KTAP is specified line buffered and unbuffered are
probably equivalent, I was just defaulting to unbuffered since it's the
more conservative (if less performant for lots of I/O) option.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists