From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f177.google.com (mail-pg1-f177.google.com [209.85.215.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B9E18460 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:49:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.177 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751302157; cv=none; b=rs28Ovx9ZeFaFlX0r9V5cLmiOXZNZ54oZEsJMg3Ffv55vwJQTeZrrxnGFzFexHOzge4EC3OX2saD0Y42v3kN0ej3zJYbuGDtPtjr3S3IvDVIDde4xxant3nxxeKJ4VlcjneLJOs9s4UzQ4sBZfe4gs+V3Shoif+0IOVHAAV5RIY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751302157; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fLeZEmgJO6R6pQRlJt5jvSYmhm8OOGQ8bdRM4ggeuS8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=PMFvGIJQgzgivRhilirYSCDfDmgP9kiiXng+5U7rUe2G4H4JRBCt4maCyGuJ8lDTcspojWzaBT5ZJt6cieE97WnjT5oS/HE3rxut3GiYqYA6LjB9H65JcGGYXVSScxryyYcxXtw2u0x/8fajCnNkX9B70JfhAQ7CsX9fDKP2ZJI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=AwQBKP4l; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.177 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="AwQBKP4l" Received: by mail-pg1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-879d2e419b9so3565370a12.2 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 09:49:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1751302156; x=1751906956; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :to:from:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mrW9f26fIExGANlWf3AAOlRqgG2ecTAhwJrAGUmlKz4=; b=AwQBKP4lWVsp3DAUC73NA7TPCm7p7/KA1D9zsDDLOoD/HQWMMzozxdYgMn1ZlIfsi1 GOyqnhtI92lrMXNS/Iv4HJ8GkjMRQasECRHuVaHaxWGsYh7HfcRx/bs5d828D+MIyUoa GKcaTBuAENbBvFQ1BrT6qh0CyzBN42KRkd+Q6PuONkM+WR/oIALA6cJQL2454F91wXNW guK9DfHwU1peqN7yQ4+J4kp4x+ngOvKYYidR6Dwcm0EmuEIHmBK4ZDlOAj83J1AfA8r9 I+oST0hks1szpcWX2DnoPRW/o98YSxb8xbzDuabnUMYjEnGUFqaEZb7BmVW7gimy8yC9 eyCA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1751302156; x=1751906956; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :to:from:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mrW9f26fIExGANlWf3AAOlRqgG2ecTAhwJrAGUmlKz4=; b=whuFaEt1wX2wTqiwXJmR8V0AKozrjWFaPPiOhGQ8O+UsmJrRzIcLKKk+za/zPEMVsC 5/0SRAojT8+mSB7yXtgw9Y5Rh0wU/bdf80oGe5Ip+4CQE7HfFCW+Ax5IOFbeBryXx72/ 5SVkRziGn7aybRhRn/OaBqX70ifMs9ynsyEVmamduUdymGWne4hVzaI/rJz+cfYkIoGD lvrRhw1oC0szGX+ky1hjr3ZCRQ8k248SXzO5jXzE+0CaE3G3CYzFPBj8Slk0no6p+0sB 1jz1FEw6mwI9amZr01DRy6AV39R+9qWcmN5lSMGCNiAyB4AMLiya1m4CCgKWE7NXOudO YcnQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXOHXAyRPl39iel6z70U8wEdbFaJBkXrC9S84Ici5FhC/RzXsoSAmFOqB1CiFSNCeAGAGLtAaiQFw==@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yybp8+3xQCK5tWm/2gBALcUZz5GnGeKCIMPrTv2s8GzXQU01x+R q7MLxMVg+vGASfl2sM51xq6JWLfLcGbIx84fzDf0QzcIQdQLhK/wsUUhVkXdRm9Z X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncssaP7bixcx9isx750hTLdNT1xh5cw7pZe9GSv1lc8haX4bt4gotxpoD5QoAlO AzsMh1l8aqGz+gmD5JN/ciOlGoJf0ojWhblmoAJhipZBh553qIuY7IzDFEcUUVuKiCAC5SFV7Cs no6aZT+bPZ+j6EIvIEpfqQvWvnEEpFqO4xcHeyZ4hrTqz4tj1P3X8M9LKxIEhlGMTTbo+vijIdX O7J9MmLpr3ejW2Q6jLE4PNhRXxsoi2gyyy10k3JloPJNZcRm1HLtEfIS3BbJt2gwMi4tAeYanLD /Z5xF15v1zhWjw82zczyQKsiOlWjl3i7YZ0IlQsB0LsCyUpY8kMfMGy7O1HBKLvAPwiujp2UI/I = X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEvOsDLZSD5Kee9E4sKUd84LTv4rNeg3yYX7DwLqwgl9hupXbOfpJIIiOXV43C17lDkPTpPfA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2b8f:b0:311:c970:c9bc with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-318c93163femr19533794a91.30.1751302155529; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 09:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2620:10d:c096:106::41a? ([2620:10d:c090:600::1:335c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-318c1392233sm9443377a91.6.2025.06.30.09.49.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Jun 2025 09:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1c1a2761-9e4d-4abd-ab43-e6d302092b6b@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:50:42 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests: timestamp example From: Pavel Begunkov To: Jens Axboe , io-uring@vger.kernel.org References: <4ba2daee657f4ff41fe4bcae1f75bc0ad7079d6d.1751299730.git.asml.silence@gmail.com> <79255ffd-9985-41f4-b404-4478d11501e5@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <79255ffd-9985-41f4-b404-4478d11501e5@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/30/25 17:45, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 6/30/25 17:20, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 6/30/25 10:09 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov >> >> A bit of commit message might be nice? Ditto the other patch. >> I know they are pretty straight forward, but doesn't hurt to >> spell out a bit why the change is being made. > > It's not like there is much to describe. The only bit > I can add is the reference to the selftest as per the CV > >>> +#ifndef SCM_TS_OPT_ID >>> +#define SCM_TS_OPT_ID 0 >>> +#endif > > Otherwise it needs to be > > #ifdef SCM_TS_OPT_ID > > All tests using SCM_TS_OPT_ID > > #else > int main() { >     return skip; > } > #endif > > which is even uglier > >> This one had me a bit puzzled, particularly with: >> >>> +    if (SCM_TS_OPT_ID == 0) { >>> +        fprintf(stderr, "no SCM_TS_OPT_ID, skip\n"); >>> +        return T_EXIT_SKIP; >>> +    } >> >> as that'll just make the test skip on even my debian unstable/testing >> base as it's still not defined there. But I guess it's because it's arch >> specific? FWIW, looks like anything but sparc/parisc define it as 81, >> hence in terms of coverage might be better to simply define it for >> anything but those and actually have the test run? > > That only works until someone runs it on those arches and complain, > i.e. delaying the problem. And I honesty don't want to parse the > current architecture and figuring the value just for a test. #include Is that even legit? -- Pavel Begunkov