From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 715CE17BD8; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 14:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712069865; cv=none; b=fOTOoKgzc5kULlzDc7xE1MPgblE4p9DVFzDotGLK1Vvm8XFsvDlbjceY60ZDDKpB74hhCT7bu9TFuSVwYO9vHv88VPj1ewYsJWP0ZaOYAKjn20iscbqJ+a3MXuj1uDMhT5hNbtm/1FI1cdBWZ79vWPrv/1/+YBFDtHpEFoTWwGM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712069865; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5fZg5QWgvKLZtjYce+k9weQ/XmQqOIU56cLlpWouz1U=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=azHpFG/ufl8ADeZxwzQEIpUw6pIw+JwKmltlX/evFcPxKA6UYrL+D38ENGc76tkySIXeezPWeFRv6jNm8VhyF5YEwHE6llk6DO9EH493qsRs44bOXIStaV0SWJtqL6Wet6tbJdyOXWVsh3gca7vOVSQZMMKaDfUTfoFGGFSKjog= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=qtcSN0Ml; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=1uVgVveT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="qtcSN0Ml"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="1uVgVveT" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1712069862; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NIf2A5XgT+mSuLeFeNcerJGYHIuW/buAb+x1UGGwSvc=; b=qtcSN0Ml+uulz1MBPI5yX3dxO+D+BxS0GQB9loNAx+1qy8o8f6+08TJdS1yPqvCCZRS5ZL Vh8IA+n+yInbBJYszYKIVGNzObdD8SnGPs2FvsvfWlsxdiLXOv4Ulevvhbpyqk83xkIR7F b98/XBV2uVbowtiNEhZ/yDBbUIADwwQD0hoKEOI3UFzp3PVNZU2PTrab11N5zWR6atqf+f 2RDgeaAvI9zBaZc1BYZFxprWY2jeQoDC3VVYGgUrtc5IH0Fu5WaRxLYtw4yxYpgJRBxvbh VjYhALIE1hnqdY51w+5f2NN3RUmP2JxlnaLswQD0HAdidlPqum0MxRI+UKNicA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1712069862; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NIf2A5XgT+mSuLeFeNcerJGYHIuW/buAb+x1UGGwSvc=; b=1uVgVveT8jsAq2IsPas3JyTp+ZuLAZAUuFrNVw2wPOpr24nhGjd8RuBTFQ6NW+lJIHkHNI EwMq2PfkSoKDYPDA== To: John Stultz , Marco Elver Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Oleg Nesterov , "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov , kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, Edward Liaw , Carlos Llamas , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread In-Reply-To: References: <20230316123028.2890338-1-elver@google.com> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 16:57:42 +0200 Message-ID: <87frw3dd7d.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, Apr 01 2024 at 13:17, John Stultz wrote: > Apologies for drudging up this old thread. > I wanted to ask if anyone had objections to including this in the -stable trees? > > After this and the follow-on patch e797203fb3ba > ("selftests/timers/posix_timers: Test delivery of signals across > threads") landed, folks testing older kernels with the latest > selftests started to see the new test checking for this behavior to > stall. Thomas did submit an adjustment to the test here to avoid the > stall: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230606142031.071059989@linutronix.de/, > but it didn't seem to land, however that would just result in the test > failing instead of hanging. Thanks for reminding me about this series. I completely forgot about it. > This change does seem to cherry-pick cleanly back to at least > stable/linux-5.10.y cleanly, so it looks simple to pull this change > back. But I wanted to make sure there wasn't anything subtle I was > missing before sending patches. This test in particular exercises new functionality/behaviour, which really has no business to be backported into stable just to make the relevant test usable on older kernels. Why would testing with latest tests against an older kernel be valid per se? Thanks, tglx