From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9275C02185 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222933C7C1E for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:48:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E7963C7B3A for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:47:47 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-5.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D35B62097D for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:47:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98CAD21181; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:47:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5951D139CB; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:47:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id LqG9FGJDimceCwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:47:46 +0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:47:40 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: <20250117114740.GA760167@pevik> References: <20250117084118.740225-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20250117095742.GA749338@pevik> <20250117101804.GA750287@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25478, ipnet:::/0, country:RU]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 98CAD21181 X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/1] lib: Multiply slow config only for a real tests X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > Hi! > > via: > > tst_max_delay_ = tst_multiply_timeout(MAX_DELAY * 1000000); > > I wonder if this should be wrapped with > > #ifndef TST_NO_DEFAULT_MAIN > I do not think so, it makes perfect sense that the timeout for retry is > multiplied on a debug kernel. The real question is if we need to retry > the clone in the case of tst_ns_exec. The commit that added the retry > loop was: > commit 7d882081a5613f44a12fc6b1c44267d4df0857a4 > Author: Petr Vorel > Date: Mon Mar 28 22:46:43 2022 +0200 > lib: Retry safe_clone() on ENOSPC > In some tests we are creating the namespaces faster than they are being > asynchronously cleaned up in the kernel: > I guess that this is not going to be the case for tst_ns_exec because we > are not adding new namespaces but rather cloning a processes into an > existing namespace. I guess you're right. Also the fix was for userns08.c. For now it would be ok for me to change SAFE_CLONE() => tst_clone(). Or do you want properly fix safe_clone()? Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp