James Youngman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> +# This isn't terribly expensive, but it must not be run under heavy load.
>> +# Since the "very expensive" are already run only with -j1, adding this
>
> "very expensive" tests
>
>> +# test to the list ensures it st
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> +# This isn't terribly expensive, but it must not be run under heavy load.
> +# Since the "very expensive" are already run only with -j1, adding this
"very expensive" tests
> +# test to the list ensures it still gets _some_ (albeit minimal)
92ef2707ea60 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:01:10 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] tests: avoid sort-spinlock-abuse false positive under heavy
load
* tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse: Classify as "very expensive" to
avoid unwarranted failure once and for all.
