[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Yeah, that makes sense. I will see how to construct such a unit test(or
call it benchmark)
2016-06-17 10:44 GMT-07:00 Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>:
> On Jun 16, 9:28pm, charles.cui1984%gmail.com@localhost (Charles Cui) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: _SC_SIGQUEUE_MAX
> | Hi Christos,
> | I have completed some unit tests for ad's work and run these unit
> | on two versions (my version and your version).
> | Your initial thinking is correct. There are bugs when getting and setting
> | different fields and these bugs can be
> | verified via my unit tests (it does not pass in my version, but pass in
> | your version).
> | Here are these patches.
> Thanks; these look great but only test the basic functionality of
> getting and setting fields. They don't test any of the actual
> functionality of the feature being added. What I would like you to
> do is to think how to construct test cases which involve multiple
> threads that create the conditions for the priority inheritance
> (and priority inversion if searching for that helps you understand
> what is going on) that the new system call is attempting to fix.
Main Index |
Thread Index |