From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Stancek Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] tst_test: Allow to set timeout from test setup() In-Reply-To: <20160803153419.GC25589@rei> References: <20160803135355.GA30335@rei.lan> <1896180212.843449.1470235129619.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20160803150655.GB25589@rei> <1951597278.861795.1470238415053.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20160803153419.GC25589@rei> Message-ID: <456027902.863199.1470239071534.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cyril Hrubis" > To: "Jan Stancek" > Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it > Sent: Wednesday, 3 August, 2016 5:34:19 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] tst_test: Allow to set timeout from test setup() > > Hi! > > > I think that it will be safer to have it run with either with a default > > > timeout or with a test->timeout. And that is the whole point of setting > > > the timeout twice in case that we call tst_set_timeout() in the test > > > setup(). > > > > Good point, so setting timeout twice seems unavoidable. > > But I'm still thinking about actions needed to set timeout > > that are now not part of tst_set_timeout(). Would it make sense > > to bring those in? > > Looks good to me. I will merge your changes into my patch, add your > Signed-off-by and push it, OK? Fine by me. Regards, Jan > > -- > Cyril Hrubis > chrubis@suse.cz >