Re: _SC_SIGQUEUE_MAX

[Charles Cui <charles.cui1984%gmail.com@localhost>]

Yeah, that makes sense. I will see how to construct such a unit test(or
call it benchmark)


Thanks, Charles.

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
> tests
> | 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.
> |
> https://github.com/ycui1984/posixtestsuite/commit/1a5bafe2691daf1755f7156d246f297568f7768b
> |
> https://github.com/ycui1984/posixtestsuite/commit/927e1ea5a3c9aa072ef7a18316903f6cf1a20056
>
> 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.
>
> christos
>