[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 20:08:39 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Peter
Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "Eric W.
Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, Edward Liaw <edliaw@...gle.com>, Carlos Llamas
<cmllamas@...gle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the
current thread
On Thu, Apr 04 2024 at 16:54, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/04, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> IOW, we cannot test this reliably at all with the current approach.
>
> Agreed!
>
> So how about a REALLY SIMPLE test-case below?
>
> Lacks error checking, should be updated to match tools/testing/selftests.
>
> Without commit bcb7ee79029dca assert(sig_cnt > SIG_CNT) fails, the very
> 1st tick wakes the leader up.
>
> With that commit it doesn't fail.
Clever!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists