Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I missed the first pass of this, but the changelog (below) suggests the
> workaround demonstration was dropped so we might want to drop this part
> of the comment as well.
sure.
>> +done:
>> + if ((fd >= 0) && (wait_for_events < 2)) {
>> + close(fd);
>> + fd = -1;
>> + }
>
> This looks like it should change (wait_for_events >= 2 means an fd
> leak). I suspect the close() should be independent of wait_for_events.
> FWIW, setting fd = -1 seems extraneous as well.
Leftovers from the original code, good catch.
>> + while (delta.tv_sec < 300) {
>> + sleep(1);
>> + gettimeofday(&now, NULL);
>> + timersub(&now, &start, &delta);
>> + dprintf("%lu loops completed in %ld seconds\n",
>> + total_loop_count, delta.tv_sec);
>> + }
>
> I'm not familiar with the background of this reproducer, but is 5
> minutes per iteration necessary? This test currently runs for a bit over
> 10 minutes. Would 60s or so per iteration provide the same level of
> coverage?
I re-tested, and yes, 1 minute should be fine. I'll change that.
Thanks!
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
