On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 09:38:10AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 6:15 AM Tycho Andersen tycho@tycho.pizza wrote:
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pids); i++) {pid = fork();if (pid == 0) {ret = syscall(__NR_getppid);exit(ret != USER_NOTIF_MAGIC);}pids[i] = pid;}/* This spins until all of the children are sleeping */+restart_wait:
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pids); i++) {if (get_proc_stat(pids[i]) != 'S') {nanosleep(&delay, NULL);goto restart_wait;}}I wonder if we should/can combine this loop with the previous one, and wait for the child to sleep in getppid() before we fork the next one. Otherwise isn't racy in the case that your loop continues to the next iteration before the child processes are scheduled, so things might be out of order? Maybe I'm missing something.
In any case, this change seems reasonable to me.
Tycho
It's okay if the child processes are started out of order. The test just verifies that the calls are delivered in FIFO order according to when the syscall was called (not when the process was started), and we do this by just looking at the notification ID. It doesn't care about which process generated the notification.
I totally missed that you don't this, I just assumed you did. Thanks.
Anyway, you can add:
Acked-by: Tycho Andersen tycho@tycho.pizza
to both patches.
Tycho