[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g46PQ_kWERgoVC--QAUNOWT6p9AwsJPTV4sM7uv6L+iB2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:24:33 -0800
From: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
catalin.marinas@....com, joe.lawrence@...hat.com,
penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, schowdary@...dia.com,
urezki@...il.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
changbin.du@...el.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 linux-kselftest-test 4/6] kunit: remove timeout
dependence on sysctl_hung_task_timeout_seconds
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:10 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:16:10AM +0000, Alan Maguire wrote:
> > In discussion of how to handle timeouts, it was noted that if
> > sysctl_hung_task_timeout_seconds is exceeded for a kunit test,
> > the test task will be killed and an oops generated. This should
> > suffice as a means of debugging such timeout issues for now.
> >
> > Hence remove use of sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs, which has the
> > added benefit of avoiding the need to export that symbol from
> > the core kernel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
>
> This seems like a workaround for sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs not being
> exported. If true, this can be addressed by creating a symbol namespace
> (new) and using that namespace on this path.
It is; as discussed on in v3[1]. I don't really feel strongly one way
or the other, I can see arguments for either side. Still, I don't want
to give Alan the run-around. I think this is the 3rd or 4th time he
has tried to address this issue.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CAFd5g44esDP6WFmkjOiH+my_4iBeqMpFoScMCm_hQ0aFwNS9qw@mail.gmail.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists