From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (relay7-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.200]) (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 5B7CA28DB3; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:10:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.183.200 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753287044; cv=none; b=j3cTIA6c/giEulYJRiUe7ebG9om4Rb6PGuKRDcHhkzqF4HNS5JQn18Id8WXv1ut69ZqL5RjYgA7kPKmqdWAS9uu9tzCXLgBFWY6cqHNKDVfP+uZVniRmR9a0g6iLGBiLKOEQ7Y5L8MJZsv8FEsXDMpL7lSbdBjVQpasU+zwcgek= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753287044; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tF967T+KWgJ50KV+Qc+CERy5sOsknJ76x0zLDhDHgR8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qWHvPDP2+mKNbTdBbwanLvzpvDKnSlthc01/w5oLdfDMWicmgziPbDMF41CGqJx1pbr6Mf+T9kKopV5W9dUj2cWVACiZThsgwAVshSi5xl0ShZKF1jnPGGTieLR1YBNQlHSkg8ndaVhFC+tmG0t+E8U5hx1bEHicXxUT1bMP3/c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b=U1VcTZ3g; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.183.200 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b="U1VcTZ3g" Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B48243992; Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:10:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=gm1; t=1753287039; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nj70YCuUwTam2AqNIVl2NKxCEyhdlssS8xo9X223qzA=; b=U1VcTZ3guoeifJtwhMjyhMHPwebD2p/YWPGKZD1LWDOb7hq73Xm0k4p5Eyf+EXf52GBgow IIY8JYq2rhHLXexDIzMai2vWGBBm4TVyondrqG1Nrt91K6LinDVqnvZdT9duzPVzW86M66 UHw322caKDfKyE4aDKzSSqYC53Rt2orZXm2V02mYmW0/I6hFEXjzI97LTwJml8ENL2TsiH iMW1Mp036Id3XrCT5ZmkIoOHYK3DPPnIzqLUNAnojvn5fDs7NpkUQnydbdkjhy2W2PXAGL Cph64tH8VBncPyT4wdW+tD77IOI+3jNrfx4UmPn9UQ5P0NtDpfh/G+p1WXXHxQ== Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 18:10:38 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: David Gow Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Brendan Higgins , Rae Moar , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] kunit/rtc: Add real support for very slow tests Message-ID: <20250723161038ab6abef0@mail.local> References: <49d57ab512c47f01d6c374d533f1752871ea4246.1743091573.git.geert@linux-m68k.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rtc@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: X-GND-State: clean X-GND-Score: -100 X-GND-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdefgdejkedvudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfitefpfffkpdcuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomheptehlvgigrghnughrvgcuuegvlhhlohhnihcuoegrlhgvgigrnhgurhgvrdgsvghllhhonhhisegsohhothhlihhnrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeegieduueethefhkeegjeevfefhiedujeeuhffgleejgfejgeekueejuefgheeggfenucffohhmrghinhepsghoohhtlhhinhdrtghomhenucfkphepvdgrtddumegvtdgrmegsieehmegsvdhftdemkegsleekmeejledtheemrggsvgelmeduhedvvdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepihhnvghtpedvrgdtudemvgdtrgemsgeiheemsgdvfhdtmeeksgelkeemjeeltdehmegrsggvleemudehvddvpdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhgvgigrnhgurhgvrdgsvghllhhonhhisegsohhothhlihhnrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeekpdhrtghpthhtohepuggrvhhiughgohifsehgohhoghhlvgdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgvggvrhhtsehlihhnuhigqdhmieekkhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopegsrhgvnhgurghnrdhhi hhgghhinhhssehlihhnuhigrdguvghvpdhrtghpthhtoheprhhmohgrrhesghhoohhglhgvrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoheplhhinhhugidqkhhsvghlfhhtvghsthesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehkuhhnihhtqdguvghvsehgohhoghhlvghgrhhouhhpshdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehlihhnuhigqdhrthgtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoheplhhinhhugidqkhgvrhhnvghlsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhg X-GND-Sasl: alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com On 28/03/2025 16:06:52+0800, David Gow wrote: > I'll get around to extending this to allow the "base timeout" to be > configurable as a command-line option, too, if this seems like a good > way to go. > > > 3. Mark rtc_time64_to_tm_test_date_range_1000 slow, > > 4. Mark rtc_time64_to_tm_test_date_range_160000 very slow. > > Hmm... these are definitely fast enough on my "modern" machine that > they probably only warrant "slow", not "very slow". But given they're > definitely causing problems on older machines, I'm happy to go with > marking the large ones very slow. (I've been waiting for them for > about 45 minutes so far on my 486.) Note that as discussed elsewhere, I'm open to simply remove rtc_time64_to_tm_test_date_range_160000. It was a nice proof that he change was working at the time but I don't think it is necessary to check this range. -- Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com