1 files changed, 0 insertions, 72 deletions
diff --git a/tools/checklocks/test/branches.go b/tools/checklocks/test/branches.go
deleted file mode 100644
index 247885a49..000000000
--- a/tools/checklocks/test/branches.go
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,72 +0,0 @@
-// Copyright 2020 The gVisor Authors.
-//
-// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
-// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
-// You may obtain a copy of the License at
-//
-//     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
-//
-// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
-// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
-// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
-// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
-// limitations under the License.
-
-package test
-
-import (
-	"math/rand"
-)
-
-func testInconsistentReturn(tc *oneGuardStruct) { // +checklocksfail
-	if x := rand.Intn(10); x%2 == 1 {
-		tc.mu.Lock()
-	}
-}
-
-func testConsistentBranching(tc *oneGuardStruct) {
-	x := rand.Intn(10)
-	if x%2 == 1 {
-		tc.mu.Lock()
-	} else {
-		tc.mu.Lock()
-	}
-	tc.guardedField = 1
-	if x%2 == 1 {
-		tc.mu.Unlock()
-	} else {
-		tc.mu.Unlock()
-	}
-}
-
-func testInconsistentBranching(tc *oneGuardStruct) { // +checklocksfail:2
-	// We traverse the control flow graph in all consistent ways. We cannot
-	// determine however, that the first if block and second if block will
-	// evaluate to the same condition. Therefore, there are two consistent
-	// paths through this code, and two inconsistent paths. Either way, the
-	// guardedField should be also marked as an invalid access.
-	x := rand.Intn(10)
-	if x%2 == 1 {
-		tc.mu.Lock()
-	}
-	tc.guardedField = 1 // +checklocksfail
-	if x%2 == 1 {
-		tc.mu.Unlock() // +checklocksforce
-	}
-}
-
-func testUnboundedLocks(tc []*oneGuardStruct) {
-	for _, l := range tc {
-		l.mu.Lock()
-	}
-	// This test should have the above *not fail*, though the exact
-	// lock state cannot be tracked through the below. Therefore, we
-	// expect the next loop to actually fail, and we force the unlock
-	// loop to succeed in exactly the same way.
-	for _, l := range tc {
-		l.guardedField = 1 // +checklocksfail
-	}
-	for _, l := range tc {
-		l.mu.Unlock() // +checklocksforce
-	}
-}