On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:33 AM, naresh kamboju <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Rishikesh K Rajak
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 01:18:50AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>> Uh, hold on a sec before we call it good...
>>
>> oh ok, holiding on for bit.
>>
>> Naresh, can you please send a patch with incorporating garret's comment
>> ?
>>>>> + /* Step 3 Implementation */
>>>>> /* Make sure the two children has been waiting */
>>>>> - /*do {
>>>>> - sleep(1);
>>>>> + do {
>>>>> sem_getvalue(sem_1, &val);
>>>>> //printf("val = %d\n", val);
>>>>> } while (val != 1);
>>>>> - */
>>>
>>> Please provide another patch with a limit to this --
>
> Garrett,
>
> When sem_wait is called 'val' value will be decremented by one.
> To ensure that sem_wait is called, we are checking 'val' value by
> calling sem_getvalue(). in this case we don’t need to decrement the
> values by --. IIUC.
> (snip)
> OTOH,
>>> I get annoyed
>>> with tests that have infinite loops in them because the underlying
>>> functionality is broken.
> I agree with you, having infinite loops in test case is not a good.
> However, in this patch while loop is not infinite loop. It is a
> conditional loop with finite value.
>
> Please let me know if you have any issues.
The problem was that it wasn't failing properly as stated in the
manpage on mips* (was decrementing past 0) and it was blocking
indefinitely. Hence I had to yank those tests from the default run.
Thanks,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
