Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:32:10 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] nolibc: add support for the s390 platform
Message-ID: <20230110163210.GP4028633@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20230109080910.26594-1-w@1wt.eu>
 <20230109191534.GU4028633@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <20230110073242.GB3229@1wt.eu>
 <20230110092517.GA4626@1wt.eu>
 <20230110145334.GL4028633@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <20230110161249.GB4649@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230110161249.GB4649@1wt.eu>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 05:12:49PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 06:53:34AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Here is one of them, based on both the fixes and Sven's s390 support.
> > Please let me know if you need any other combination.
> 
> Thanks, here's the problem:
> 
> > 0 getpid = 1                             [OK]
> > 1 getppid = 0                            [OK]
> > 3 gettid = 1                             [OK]
> > 5 getpgid_self = 0                       [OK]
> > 6 getpgid_bad = -1 ESRCH                 [OK]
> > 7 kill_0[    1.940442] tsc: Refined TSC clocksource calibration: 2399.981 MHz
> > [    1.942334] clocksource: tsc: mask: 0xffffffffffffffff max_cycles: 0x229825a5278, max_idle_ns: 440795306804 ns
> >  = 0                             [OK]
> > 8 kill_CONT = 0           [    1.944987] clocksource: Switched to clocksource tsc
> >                [OK]
> > 9 kill_BADPID = -1 ESRCH                 [OK]
> (...)
> 
> It's clear that "grep -c ^[0-9].*OK" will not count all of them (2 are
> indeed missing).
> 
> We could probably start with "quiet" but that would be against the
> principle of using this to troubleshoot issues. I think we just stick
> to the current search of "FAIL" and that as long as a success is
> reported and the number of successes is within the expected range
> that could be OK. At least I guess :-/

Huh.  Would it make sense to delay the start of the nolibc testing by a
few seconds in order to avoid this sort of thing?  Or would that cause
other problems?

							Thanx, Paul