From: Phillip Wood Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 19:16:12 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: cache glibc version check Message-ID: <53cffc06-ebb1-ac97-ceb4-4c242a82c68a@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Hi Junio On 04/08/2022 19:08, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" writes: > > Between USE_LIBC_MALLOC_DEBUG, which is the name Peff originally > gave this intermediate variable, and the one you use here, I am > undecided. If the only thing the GLIBC_TUNABLES mechanism can do > were to tweak the malloc checking, then both names are good, but > that is not the case. We are only seeing if we are going to use the > malloc check feature given by glibc here, so the original name feels > more to the point, and use of GLIBC_TUNABLE mechanism to trigger > that malloc check feature is a mere implementation detail. > > But that is minor. Let's queue the patch to help me not to forget > about it, and we'll amend it if necessary, as we'd probably need a > helped-by or signed-off-by from Peff anyway before this hits 'next'. Oh, sorry I'd missed that message where Peff posted essentially the same patch. I wrote this at the same time as 067109a5e7 ("tests: make SANITIZE=address imply TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK", 2022-04-09) but did not post in then as we were in a rc period and then forgot about it. Having just read Peff's message this does not make much difference to the test timings and if I'd seen that before I wouldn't have posted this. As for the variable name I don't mind particularly either way, I chose this name as the variable is checking whether we should use the glibc tunables mechanism or not. Best Wishes Phillip > Thanks.