Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

test_ring_buffer: Use yield instead of sleep_for(10us). #569

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 21, 2020

Conversation

kinetiknz
Copy link
Collaborator

See issue #567 for details.

@padenot, this retains (I think) the original intention, but the tests pass without yield too, so I'd be just as happy to remove it entirely.

@kinetiknz kinetiknz requested a review from padenot January 21, 2020 00:13
@kinetiknz kinetiknz self-assigned this Jan 21, 2020
@padenot
Copy link
Collaborator

padenot commented Jan 21, 2020

Thanks. I'll try intentionally breaking the queue (for example putting a relaxed instead of an acquire or something), this should work (as in, correctly detect that it's now incorrect), this was one of the bugs I had when writing it, and was discovered with this sort of stress test.

I've been investigating other ways to test this kind of scenarios, because we'll need to remove a bunch of locks in gecko (and maybe cubeb, although it's not quite as problematic) this year, I'll follow up, this test kinda works but it's crude.

@padenot padenot merged commit be30055 into master Jan 21, 2020
@kinetiknz kinetiknz deleted the issue567_ring_buf branch January 23, 2020 02:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants