From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40A34577A; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 16:59:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EBB42D78; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 16:59:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f48.google.com (mail-pj1-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88934025F for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 16:59:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2cf213128a1so1685715a91.2 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2024 07:59:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1723215573; x=1723820373; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=JmpA6Jn5L4jMGjoJ0snDh3PC7hyg+6c1TiWIfkXu3tM=; b=Z842IPF81ygHsRQj4CHzTKyqjlQ53NfRmgMyC5w2kBsaWLBfVp/1g2mApE1xkRpQom fQYjXJv5amKx1tx3GkK9BR+lXdTG2BA21yX3dfSHBqo8KTOVlxw9ntSs/Q5xniQkaFF0 3P9DA1kb7ya7uC2ppTawqn2qpzinygxj64gB+ET1adSKrsvu7oCjwiQCA1jQ+8vYE9i5 Y4cMBJ3JgMVRB9zO2U4pw+9jcMeOUgWKOcbWu2RcM/rlZIdX4coiL0vdBuO6ljVeDVRE AvSjO3kI4r+5irkJld6XjqDOLpiPtqdZwdnlhTPwzF4VOu3H2fNJp+/PkaNQ+rno8mL0 NMTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723215573; x=1723820373; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JmpA6Jn5L4jMGjoJ0snDh3PC7hyg+6c1TiWIfkXu3tM=; b=ckPy2V7IKt100nauzmMzlzgh9mkCmn3AlVrlut+gL8+pnKBYpQT1tUNk4L6LNqCmed tBZq7gcZxuAsdCM49lR9F7ie57dREgYrUHmeI+1C+BfDM7a2FZnXx7fLmDPFzyr9q9By QnVfhtmex3MM5/c3fWyhHAEzDnu+KvVO9i3Dlb8EYzOM09089aNbwexjosO8a7Wk4trw uTs/MyoCsElXTTjfum2XKuvyHPrV097NZ+TIclFxnGacPSFCDXmj1lowlK9k+oI7kooS KWyZk5/x421a4UEAsQXC46R2sc2jcI2nxMlxsGQlDxs4U15PWbNcj5zwwzvEtmFYL+xN avmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw1KtP92cG7DCyFlgrF6OwlYZ9Bu7Qre2nienSgBVAkxdWXJYkS +2ga1lyGXitH2Io3aihY/GjrMm0GCWadBocAutyHhWFfLwi/nShX0pMhT3Nrut0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHK0NPi9T3QFlzsduXK+o3fGpFPxz3WJBZiCECXTCDZ1aCzDf26j8Uhc7QNOO4dcF/DrvniNQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4acf:b0:2ca:7636:2217 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2d1e7f9a4e1mr2020914a91.2.1723215572700; Fri, 09 Aug 2024 07:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-2d1c9daf77asm3063696a91.38.2024.08.09.07.59.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 09 Aug 2024 07:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 07:59:30 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Dmitry Kozlyuk Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Tyler Retzlaff Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Revert "test/alarm: disable bad time cases on Windows" Message-ID: <20240809075930.2b8dee58@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <20240809102324.154920fc@sovereign> References: <20240808194756.167664-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20240808194756.167664-3-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20240809102324.154920fc@sovereign> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 10:23:24 +0300 Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote: > 2024-08-08 12:46 (UTC-0700), Stephen Hemminger: > > This reverts commit a089d320338d708f5b7126dab5fd6861c82e6347. > > > > Windows EAL should have been fixed rather than papering over > > the bug. > > Linux and FreeBSD alarm implementations use the same approach > that limits possible timeout range in API. > Test cases in question check that these values are rejected. > Windows EAL can accept any values. That was a bug. There should not be different behavior on different OS. > I think the proper fix would be documenting Unix limitations > at API level (it never worked the other way, so no real breakage), > then adding the same checks to Windows EAL only for consistency. No. All EAL should behave the same.