On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 11:47 AM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 25/08/2025 09.30, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 12:49 PM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> From: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> > >> > >> Currently, we have one lock that is held while a test is looking for > >> free ports. However, we are also using different ranges for looking > >> for free ports nowadays (PORTS_START is based on the PID of the process), > >> so instead of using only one lock, we should rather use a lock per > >> range instead. This should help to allow running more tests in parallel. > >> > >> While we're at it, also create the lock files without executable bit > >> (mode is 0o777 by default). > >> > > > > (Unrelated to this patch but the file itself) > > > > Hm. AF_INET supports binding to port 0 to connect to any available > > port (see man 7 ip). Is this not portable? > > No clue ... but in that case, we'd need to go back to only use one lock for > all tests that are running in parallel, so it might cause some more > contention?
IIUC there would be no need for locking, since the kernel would return a free port for each process. I can submit a patch btw, but thought I could ask first. -- Manos Pitsidianakis Emulation and Virtualization Engineer at Linaro Ltd
