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 BAEED22083; Mon, 14 Jul 2025 22:30:55 +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=1752532255; cv=none; b=X9NatW7w9iX7EkfSrq5lbjHZU6NBxOixSRsItzGjokawXTlELmuWryLA5iA4Gkr4qivKflCExERaOROuxV89c8j4Zy64EjsNURrsBY1nZIHojs5oEHiUDKdeEw2gkIBndgKvkQ3DcYimJXygmN8c0Xyj/pCjkWRmaiI+gfFGt5w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752532255; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TCsmjyHIIm2+lcmx7bn49vsTYR9KkYs4YrWUY/AuaYs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=U3l8u/ZwHg0FDeZfee6lCxtsyg7pdS579GeJicrn6IWUFKRjkR6KO8k2f+U+b9UEf6TNxhj6/xvDGb5epnNESLHvv/s6SHIaKpnSE3dHrW/Qqj9AJfles12QXXK1f6F18oZ+mo6jfAFVqw2OoRP7D/hPjsD9dD5/k7TID1b5hmc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ViTU1Dhn; 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="ViTU1Dhn" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE35FC4CEED; Mon, 14 Jul 2025 22:30:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1752532255; bh=TCsmjyHIIm2+lcmx7bn49vsTYR9KkYs4YrWUY/AuaYs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ViTU1DhnEI2od3Wyh8PtadNY2e8Wdhj7LKY3/nNbmflqlQdW/6xZwomzw/Tcy5euT W+kvbrEts0kTYBYq5R/x+R1IaubXf/gPQXyPnlUqLbQdgDfSdYvxidpcm82i+WjYcZ IInigYJPXNVRj38wZRJcf3SIdayUI02HU8qd9/nnsFhYq3ys1HRLRVe93+y6R4WjQi mj8/oPep97CgW2wTThDf5saJigSvuFT7n1SBy2f8oBWu5WiHLe/Kc7W4NfTPWgsk9U DXLSPprFV1gsj3EyFOnhCmZZBD60wXurbayBcApy9y5NaUfCcVKgRWNzm1BCYGwDOJ G+4mTgOt2rquw== Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 15:30:54 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Hangbin Liu Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net] selftests: rtnetlink: try double sleep to give WQ a chance Message-ID: <20250714153054.07b2095e@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20250710145312.3361964-1-kuba@kernel.org> <20250711071729.14d727f6@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 07:19:09 +0000 Hangbin Liu wrote: > > > How about use slowwait to check if the address still exists. > > > > Weirdly if we read the addresses twice they disappear, I haven't looked > > into the code for the why, but seemed like using slowwait could > > potentially mask the addresses sticking around when nobody runs > > the Netlink handlers for a while? Dunno.. > > Not sure if I understand correctly. Do you mean the addresses will keep there > if we use slowwait? No, I mean there may be false negatives, not false positive. But maybe it's fine, it will definitely prevent flakes. Could you post the slowwait patch officially? -- pw-bot: cr