From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:12:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2.1] t6500: wait for detached auto gc at the end of the test script
Message-ID: <20170413181211.kxrw76fgm5fbrwav@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAM0VKjkA3O9YB5QpT+hBwt13FtQXOwiW5Fh3goSbi42V8rTzjQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 08:08:12PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:31:38PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> 
> > I did wonder what will happen if Windows learns to daemonize() the
> > auto-gc. I don't think we'll get an immediate test failure, but this
> > test will become racy again. But this time we'll actually notice the
> > racy failure, because the "ls" will report extra packs if it runs before
> > the background gc does. At which point we can revisit this.
> 
> Dscho said that it would take significant effort to make daemonize()
> work on Windows, so I guess it will take a while before we'll have to
> revisit this.

Yeah, that's what I figured. I mostly just didn't want to leave a
time-bomb for future developers.

> > I guess we could probably grep for the "in the background" message from
> > the parent gc. OTOH, maybe it is not even worth it.
> 
> That wouldn't work at the moment, because auto gc says that it will go
> to the background even on Windows.

Ah, OK. Let's not worry about it, then. I think the way your test is
constructed we should get a racy failure not long after the change, and
your comments would lead people to realize what is going on.

-Peff