[PATCH 3/3] tests: add one more test for event-loop signal source

[Marek Chalupa]

On 18 August 2014 12:23, Marek Chalupa <mchqwerty at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> thanks for reviewing.
>
> The failure you got is not introduced by this patch, I reported it some
> time ago here:
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80594
>

I put a patch for this bug into bugzilla:

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80594



>
>
>
> On 18 August 2014 12:18, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:35:07 +0200
>> Marek Chalupa <mchqwerty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Test if when we get a signal, all signal sources for that signal
>> > get dispatched.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Marek Chalupa <mchqwerty at gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> >  tests/event-loop-test.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/tests/event-loop-test.c b/tests/event-loop-test.c
>> > index e327a66..1709a1a 100644
>> > --- a/tests/event-loop-test.c
>> > +++ b/tests/event-loop-test.c
>> > @@ -173,6 +173,44 @@ TEST(event_loop_signal)
>> >       wl_event_loop_destroy(loop);
>> >  }
>> >
>> > +TEST(event_loop_multiple_same_signals)
>> > +{
>> > +     struct wl_event_loop *loop = wl_event_loop_create();
>> > +     struct wl_event_source *s1, *s2;
>> > +     int calls_no = 0;
>> > +     int i;
>> > +
>> > +     s1 = wl_event_loop_add_signal(loop, SIGUSR1,
>> > +                                   signal_callback, &calls_no);
>> > +     assert(s1);
>> > +
>> > +     s2 = wl_event_loop_add_signal(loop, SIGUSR1,
>> > +                                   signal_callback, &calls_no);
>> > +     assert(s2);
>> > +
>> > +     assert(wl_event_loop_dispatch(loop, 0) == 0);
>> > +     assert(!calls_no);
>> > +
>> > +     /* Try it more times */
>> > +     for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
>> > +             calls_no = 0;
>> > +             kill(getpid(), SIGUSR1);
>> > +             assert(wl_event_loop_dispatch(loop, 0) == 0);
>> > +             assert(calls_no == 2);
>> > +     }
>> > +
>> > +     wl_event_source_remove(s1);
>> > +
>> > +     /* Try it again  with one source */
>> > +     calls_no = 0;
>> > +     kill(getpid(), SIGUSR1);
>> > +     assert(wl_event_loop_dispatch(loop, 0) == 0);
>> > +     assert(calls_no == 1);
>> > +
>> > +     wl_event_source_remove(s2);
>> > +
>> > +     wl_event_loop_destroy(loop);
>> > +}
>> >
>> >  static int
>> >  timer_callback(void *data)
>>
>> The first two of the three patches pushed. We have an explicit configure
>> check from SFD_CLOEXEC, but I suppose we don't need to add one for
>> SFD_NONBLOCK, because the two were supposedly introduced at the same
>> time in glibc.
>>
>> I did not push this third patch, because in my testing, the test failed
>> once. It was very hard, but I did manage to trigger it a second time
>> too, by having lots of CPU and IO load on the machine and running the
>> test in loop until it failed:
>>
>> test "event_loop_destroy":      exit status 0, pass.
>> event-loop-test: tests/event-loop-test.c:298: event_loop_timer_updates:
>> Assertion `context.count == 2' failed.
>> test "event_loop_timer_updates":        signal 6, fail.
>> test "event_loop_timer":        exit status 0, pass.
>> test "event_loop_multiple_same_signals":        exit status 0, pass.
>> test "event_loop_signal":       exit status 0, pass.
>> test "event_loop_free_source_with_data":        exit status 0, pass.
>> test "event_loop_post_dispatch_check":  exit status 0, pass.
>> 7 tests, 6 pass, 1 fail
>>
>> I would like to see some fix on that, even if only theoretical, before
>> I push this one.
>>
>> Or an ack from someone else that we should just push this and wait for
>> the fallout if any.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> pq
>>
>
> Regards,
> Marek
>

Regards,
Marek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20140819/e620c7fd/attachment.html>