Christian Brauner <[email protected]> writes: > The selftests rely on this behavior that timeout=0 sees events from a > concurrently running producer. They would fail at a very higher rate > after this change - believe me I had a similar patch that changed > something in this area.
Huh, that's interesting. Do you still remember which selftest cases rely on this behavior? I would like to study them further. > I would explore the seqcount that Mateusz suggested tbh. I will investigate that. Nam
