From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Palethorpe Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:10:04 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] fs: exclude 'wakeup_count' from read_all_sys test. In-Reply-To: <20180803152018.13701-1-sspatil@google.com> References: <20180803152018.13701-1-sspatil@google.com> Message-ID: <87sh3m48jn.fsf@rpws.prws.suse.cz> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hello, Sandeep Patil writes: > /sys/power/wakeup_count semantics state that the read() for the file > will block as long as there is a wakeup_event in progress. On most > systems, this will be non deterministic and will result in extremely > flaky test. Exclude the file from read_all_sys test for the same. > > Signed-off-by: Sandeep Patil > --- > runtest/fs | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/runtest/fs b/runtest/fs > index a66948a43..aca7e355f 100644 > --- a/runtest/fs > +++ b/runtest/fs > @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ proc01 proc01 -m 128 > > read_all_dev read_all -d /dev -p -q -r 10 > read_all_proc read_all -d /proc -q -r 10 > -read_all_sys read_all -d /sys -q -r 10 > +read_all_sys read_all -d /sys -q -r 10 -e /sys/power/wakeup_count > This probably won't be the only file with semantics like these. So I am wondering if we can limit the time it spends blocking with timer_create and SIGEV_THREAD_ID or something similar? -- Thank you, Richard.