From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests: timestamp example
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:47:59 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2a2ac741-7952-4b7d-a731-5db7b40ea19f@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <79255ffd-9985-41f4-b404-4478d11501e5@gmail.com>
On 6/30/25 10:45 AM, 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 <asml.silence@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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
Agree, but even a link to the cover letter for the feature would be
nice, then people can at least look it up rather than need to search for
what it is.
>>> +#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
That's not what I meant, as per below. It was about defining it to
something valid, rather than gate the entire test on the define being
available.
>> 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.
Since it's just those two obscure archs that nobody uses, I can just add
it after the fact. I'd rather deal with that than not have the test run
just because some arch relics use private defines. Not a big deal.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-30 16:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-30 16:09 [PATCH 0/2] add tx timestamp tests Pavel Begunkov
2025-06-30 16:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] Sync io_uring.h with tx timestamp api Pavel Begunkov
2025-06-30 16:09 ` [PATCH 2/2] tests: timestamp example Pavel Begunkov
2025-06-30 16:20 ` Jens Axboe
2025-06-30 16:45 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-06-30 16:47 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2025-06-30 16:50 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-06-30 16:54 ` Jens Axboe
2025-06-30 16:55 ` Pavel Begunkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2a2ac741-7952-4b7d-a731-5db7b40ea19f@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox