Menu
▾
▴
Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization required before release the lock: sem_post/8-1.c
|
From: naresh k. <nar...@gm...> - 2010-03-03 11:49:57
|
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Garrett Cooper <yan...@gm...> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:33 AM, naresh kamboju <nar...@gm...> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Rishikesh K Rajak
>> <ris...@li...> 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.
do you mean, after applying above patch you have noticed these kind of behavior?
Thanks
naresh
> Thanks,
> -Garrett
>
|