[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zo7C8W97URxXYXd-@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:20:49 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org,
patches@...nelci.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de,
jonathanh@...dia.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de,
conor@...nel.org, allen.lkml@...il.com,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.9 000/197] 6.9.9-rc1 review
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 02:04:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> # # RUN rtc.date_read_loop ...
> # # rtctest.c:95:date_read_loop:Continuously reading RTC time for 30s (with 11ms breaks after every read).
> # # rtctest.c:122:date_read_loop:Performed 2954 RTC time reads.
> # # OK rtc.date_read_loop
> Bisection points to "selftests/harness: Fix tests timeout and race
> condition" but this looks like a test bug, the timeout for tests is 30s
> and the test tries to run for 30s which obviously doesn't add up.
> Previously the test would pass because the bug the patch is fixing is
> that timeout had no effect. I'm also running the test on other
> platforms without it triggering new timeouts, it's just this one
> specific platform that triggered which is a bit worrying.
> I'll send a patch for the test.
Sorry, spoke too soon on that - the test is explicitly overriding the
timeout to be longer so there's something else going on here.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists