From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3A35173 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 02:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774231427; cv=none; b=eLzgtQpYqYnYUH9UaY9PI55gAobOpyxsZr2OOvlWs+u2nolsRCabpt5aPufWObrCFwougzPhVzh4g+P9AyXHz+lxzk849ao2PH02NB7szFJZOK8Y2ciS+hITHpJkMGs90+KiPw4kjXWnGRvI8C8IToLeTlk6Y1OKX+RygoDHC5g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774231427; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QOqixWp7rQ4OlXbd8lVugUF17W/ORHlHwcpnQ7apr60=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=iWl9C0oXejjKu565ZOLpyFWJeqBTpIdwVng2m8eYVef21XR9ia1XjpungxFetTe8XA1pW9e89Iqcfuh5CH6IwFTxjXn/GiInJW4wjVhHipEvkHYRL2Qa7m5mGyc1kK+MR/kvKYAWrJGvMTW9yxA+IxPRZi1gf3PuQyuOylD4NBA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=rlIWDGWJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="rlIWDGWJ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 641F4C19424; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 02:03:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1774231427; bh=QOqixWp7rQ4OlXbd8lVugUF17W/ORHlHwcpnQ7apr60=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=rlIWDGWJw78F4dTCHMjOuh0tUir08xMWlFJleewNLb3gw8hdz68sCMkS0KSfM5zzN ndRnWbV0GF5DjqMgUHZ/tm2eUwjeoc58xyhP9lk/qTRhJqxShPyFT6g13sBXMjWecw 970/ln4utr7V/dXvLu3UfspY9Cu/LFLjliQnNmepqIXkV+ZqFxY8NIJBAwMhtUCSJL 7tHQyoY85zXU9+UKB/YRUs5uThibe44DFQ08Y0u2GdToC28rlpOgm8n11XD1mutlQU be5p9VM3M1NnIHiMhwn5D+IpprjxV01qjcmVjgXUkTcps/EFYDXxX6doQ4/1scA5yz ciN+gqzT7lCVw== Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 19:03:46 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: David Disseldorp Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] common/rc: add default _udev_wait timeout Message-ID: <20260323020346.GC6254@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20260319005154.29274-1-ddiss@suse.de> <20260319153843.GI6023@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20260320103736.40f275b8.ddiss@suse.de> <20260320144413.GA6212@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20260323125421.62c9cede.ddiss@suse.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260323125421.62c9cede.ddiss@suse.de> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:54:21PM +1100, David Disseldorp wrote: > On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 07:44:13 -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > ... > > > I normally have udevd running, but sometimes mess it up. My latest screw > > > up came from ommitting a "/run" dir in the initramfs test env, which > > > causes systemd-udevd to die on "/run/udev" creation. The error message > > > is hard to spot amoungst the other boot messages... > > > > Oh, ok. For some reason I thought you were trying to run fstests > > without udev. What if instead ./check looked for udevd and refused to > > proceed if it isn't running? AFAIK even the anti-systemd distros ship > > eudev. > > I've added the extra udevd sanity check to my test env, so I shouldn't > need anything in check. I'd expect NFS, SMB, CephFS, etc. may still want > to run without udevd. > > > > > The error message causes test failure via golden output mismatch and > > > > > is easier to debug than an infinite loop. > > > > > > > > > > The timeout parameter is also compatible with existing > > > > > args="--removed " callers. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Disseldorp > > > > > --- > > > > > common/rc | 2 +- > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > > > > > index fd4ca964..aade0e5b 100644 > > > > > --- a/common/rc > > > > > +++ b/common/rc > > > > > @@ -5544,7 +5544,7 @@ _udev_wait() > > > > > if [ -z "$UDEV_WAIT_PROG" ]; then > > > > > $UDEV_SETTLE_PROG >/dev/null 2>&1 > > > > > else > > > > > - $UDEV_WAIT_PROG $args > > > > > + $UDEV_WAIT_PROG --timeout 10 $args > > > > > > > > ...a system running udevd that's taking forever to process rules can hit > > > > this 10 second timeout, at which point the test moves on and might just > > > > fail due to unconfigured /dev nodes. > > > > > > The 10 seconds is arbitrary. If there's a concern that the timeout will > > > prematurely fire on a regular systems then I'll gladly raise it up to a > > > minute or so. I just want to get an explicit failure instead of a > > > never-ending test. > > > > > > I'd still like to see a timeout added, as a failed test (with timeout > msg) is IMO a far better outcome than an endless wait. Any objections if > I send a v2 patch with 60s timeout? Nope, 60 seconds should be enough for anyone. ;) --D