Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:32:10 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] nolibc: add support for the s390 platform |
| |
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 05:12:49PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 06:53:34AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Here is one of them, based on both the fixes and Sven's s390 support. > > Please let me know if you need any other combination. > > Thanks, here's the problem: > > > 0 getpid = 1 [OK] > > 1 getppid = 0 [OK] > > 3 gettid = 1 [OK] > > 5 getpgid_self = 0 [OK] > > 6 getpgid_bad = -1 ESRCH [OK] > > 7 kill_0[ 1.940442] tsc: Refined TSC clocksource calibration: 2399.981 MHz > > [ 1.942334] clocksource: tsc: mask: 0xffffffffffffffff max_cycles: 0x229825a5278, max_idle_ns: 440795306804 ns > > = 0 [OK] > > 8 kill_CONT = 0 [ 1.944987] clocksource: Switched to clocksource tsc > > [OK] > > 9 kill_BADPID = -1 ESRCH [OK] > (...) > > It's clear that "grep -c ^[0-9].*OK" will not count all of them (2 are > indeed missing). > > We could probably start with "quiet" but that would be against the > principle of using this to troubleshoot issues. I think we just stick > to the current search of "FAIL" and that as long as a success is > reported and the number of successes is within the expected range > that could be OK. At least I guess :-/
Huh. Would it make sense to delay the start of the nolibc testing by a few seconds in order to avoid this sort of thing? Or would that cause other problems?
Thanx, Paul
| |