On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 09:42 +0100, Renaud Lottiaux wrote:
> Hi Subrata !
> > Thanks Renaud for these concurrency fixes. In fact you are helping to do
> > lots'of cleanup in LTP. I was thinking whether i can enter in to some
> > agreement with you for this. Hah Hah. Just joking. Yes, we need lots of
> > cleanup everywhere for some reason or the other.
> Happy to see that my fixes are of interrest !
> We won't need anymore to maintain work-around patches to make LTP tests
> running on our system. Great ! :)
Oh yes. It saves you additional burden of maintaining work-around
patches for yourself only. When you fix them in LTP directly, you
benefit and hence do others as well.
> > Can i expect that you would keep providing me fixes for these
> > concurrency issue(s) in LTP Test cases in days to come.
> Yes, definitly.
> I still have some patches. But most of our work-around are external stuffs.
> Like for instance, a script which make sure each test starts in a separated
> directory, for tests not using the tst_tmpdir function, but doing conflicting
> stuffs in local directories.
> But I plan to fix LTP tests to remove our work-around script.
> > May be by few months from now, we can certify that LTP Test cases are
> > SMP-Safe ??
> I hope so :)
> But don't you think that "concurrency-safe" would be a better term. The
> patches I send have nothing to do with SMP (at user level). I do not fix
> locking issues or this kind of stuff. I just make tests able to run
> concurrently to stress the kernel level SMP-safeness.
Oh yes. You are correct. It should better be called as concurrency-safe
rather than SMP-safe.
Actually we should be more thankful to you for the cleanups that you are
What is your take on these fixes ??