[PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch

[PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch

[Deepesh.Varatharajan]

From: Deepesh Varatharajan <Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com>

This patch was originally added to address a rare failure on the PPC
target observed in AB. Currently, we are no longer testing the PPC
target in OE-Core. Therefore, we can remove this local patch. We have
also verified PPC testing locally several times without this patch,
and the issue has not reoccurred.

Signed-off-by: Deepesh Varatharajan <Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com>
---
 ...crease-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch | 31 -------------------
 meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc    |  1 -
 2 files changed, 32 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch

diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 5bd1abffb4..0000000000
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
-From b4524278985f517b0785b6f64a21380dcf1ff096 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: Peter Tatrai <peter.tatrai.ext@siemens.com>
-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 13:58:16 +0100
-Subject: [PATCH] oeqa/selftest: Increase timeout in process-sigpipe rust test
-
-This patch increases the timeout for the process-sigpipe rust test, which
-occasionally fails when the server is under heavy load. Increasing the timeout
-reduces the likelihood of false negatives under load.
-
-Fixes [YOCTO #15625]
-
-Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [OE testing specific]
-
-Signed-off-by: Peter Tatrai <peter.tatrai.ext@siemens.com>
----
- tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs | 2 +-
- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
-
-diff --git a/tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs b/tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs
-index 11f363d62..c12d66016 100644
---- a/tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs
-+++ b/tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs
-@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ use std::thread;
- fn main() {
-     // Just in case `yes` or `while-echo` doesn't check for EPIPE...
-     thread::spawn(|| {
--        thread::sleep_ms(5000);
-+        thread::sleep_ms(50000);
-         process::exit(1);
-     });
-     // QNX Neutrino does not have `yes`. Therefore, use `while-echo` for `nto`
diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc b/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc
index d7d44510e4..3edf0899ab 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc
@@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ SRC_URI += "https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/rustc-${RUST_VERSION}-src.tar.xz;n
             file://0001-Define-more-ioctl-codes-on-riscv32gc-unknown-linux-g.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
             file://rust-oe-selftest.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
             file://repro-issue-fix-with-cc-crate-hashmap.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
-            file://oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
             file://0001-src-core-build_steps-tool.rs-switch-off-lto-for-rust.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
             file://revert-link-std-statically-in-rustc_driver-feature.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
             file://0001-riscv32-Define-plain-syscalls-as-their-time64-varian.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
-- 
2.49.0

RE: [OE-core] [PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch

[Marko, Peter]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded-
> core@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Varatharajan, Deepesh via
> lists.openembedded.org
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 8:55
> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> Cc: Sundeep.Kokkonda@windriver.com; Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com
> Subject: [OE-core] [PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-
> sigpipe-ru.patch
> 
> From: Deepesh Varatharajan <Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com>
> 
> This patch was originally added to address a rare failure on the PPC
> target observed in AB. Currently, we are no longer testing the PPC
> target in OE-Core. Therefore, we can remove this local patch. We have
> also verified PPC testing locally several times without this patch,
> and the issue has not reoccurred.

Was this tested for 32-bit ppc on a build machine which was under some load?
I wouldn't like to play a remove/re-add game, flaky timing tests have tendency to return.
It's rather trivial patch which should not be causing any maintenance effort.

Note that this architecture is not being tested on AB, so the commit message is bit misleading (as it was not observed on Yocto AB).
Also not being tested in AB is not a good reason to remove something as users are still using it (as a tier-2 feature).
Note that we're discussing some form of return of Yocto AB testing for 32-bit PPC.

Peter

> 
> Signed-off-by: Deepesh Varatharajan <Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com>
> ---
>  ...crease-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch | 31 -------------------
>  meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc    |  1 -
>  2 files changed, 32 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-
> timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch
> 
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-
> process-sigpipe-ru.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-
> timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch
> deleted file mode 100644
> index 5bd1abffb4..0000000000
> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-
> sigpipe-ru.patch
> +++ /dev/null
> @@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
> -From b4524278985f517b0785b6f64a21380dcf1ff096 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> -From: Peter Tatrai <peter.tatrai.ext@siemens.com>
> -Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 13:58:16 +0100
> -Subject: [PATCH] oeqa/selftest: Increase timeout in process-sigpipe rust test
> -
> -This patch increases the timeout for the process-sigpipe rust test, which
> -occasionally fails when the server is under heavy load. Increasing the timeout
> -reduces the likelihood of false negatives under load.
> -
> -Fixes [YOCTO #15625]
> -
> -Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [OE testing specific]
> -
> -Signed-off-by: Peter Tatrai <peter.tatrai.ext@siemens.com>
> ----
> - tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs | 2 +-
> - 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> -
> -diff --git a/tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs b/tests/ui/process/process-
> sigpipe.rs
> -index 11f363d62..c12d66016 100644
> ---- a/tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs
> -+++ b/tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs
> -@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ use std::thread;
> - fn main() {
> -     // Just in case `yes` or `while-echo` doesn't check for EPIPE...
> -     thread::spawn(|| {
> --        thread::sleep_ms(5000);
> -+        thread::sleep_ms(50000);
> -         process::exit(1);
> -     });
> -     // QNX Neutrino does not have `yes`. Therefore, use `while-echo` for `nto`
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc b/meta/recipes-
> devtools/rust/rust-source.inc
> index d7d44510e4..3edf0899ab 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc
> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc
> @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ SRC_URI += "https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/rustc-
> ${RUST_VERSION}-src.tar.xz;n
>              file://0001-Define-more-ioctl-codes-on-riscv32gc-unknown-linux-
> g.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>              file://rust-oe-selftest.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>              file://repro-issue-fix-with-cc-crate-hashmap.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
> -            file://oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-
> ru.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>              file://0001-src-core-build_steps-tool.rs-switch-off-lto-for-
> rust.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>              file://revert-link-std-statically-in-rustc_driver-
> feature.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>              file://0001-riscv32-Define-plain-syscalls-as-their-time64-
> varian.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
> --
> 2.49.0

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch

[Deepesh Varatharajan]

On 21-01-2026 14:44, Marko, Peter wrote:
> CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded-
>> core@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Varatharajan, Deepesh via
>> lists.openembedded.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 8:55
>> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> Cc: Sundeep.Kokkonda@windriver.com; Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com
>> Subject: [OE-core] [PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-
>> sigpipe-ru.patch
>>
>> From: Deepesh Varatharajan <Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com>
>>
>> This patch was originally added to address a rare failure on the PPC
>> target observed in AB. Currently, we are no longer testing the PPC
>> target in OE-Core. Therefore, we can remove this local patch. We have
>> also verified PPC testing locally several times without this patch,
>> and the issue has not reoccurred.
> Was this tested for 32-bit ppc on a build machine which was under some load?
Yes we did the testing for 32-bit ppc on our local machines and the 
issue was not seen.
(In normal load conditions in a shared machine).
> I wouldn't like to play a remove/re-add game, flaky timing tests have tendency to return.
> It's rather trivial patch which should not be causing any maintenance effort.
Agreed. But after the discussion with rust upstream folks in the past, 
they have concern about our local
patches. We are working on cleaning up the patches. So, please create an 
issue upstream or submit the
patch upstream and backport it.

Regards,
Deepesh
>
> Note that this architecture is not being tested on AB, so the commit message is bit misleading (as it was not observed on Yocto AB).
> Also not being tested in AB is not a good reason to remove something as users are still using it (as a tier-2 feature).
> Note that we're discussing some form of return of Yocto AB testing for 32-bit PPC.
>
> Peter
>
>> Signed-off-by: Deepesh Varatharajan <Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com>
>> ---
>>   ...crease-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch | 31 -------------------
>>   meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc    |  1 -
>>   2 files changed, 32 deletions(-)
>>   delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-
>> timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-
>> process-sigpipe-ru.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-
>> timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch
>> deleted file mode 100644
>> index 5bd1abffb4..0000000000
>> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/files/oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-
>> sigpipe-ru.patch
>> +++ /dev/null
>> @@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
>> -From b4524278985f517b0785b6f64a21380dcf1ff096 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> -From: Peter Tatrai <peter.tatrai.ext@siemens.com>
>> -Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 13:58:16 +0100
>> -Subject: [PATCH] oeqa/selftest: Increase timeout in process-sigpipe rust test
>> -
>> -This patch increases the timeout for the process-sigpipe rust test, which
>> -occasionally fails when the server is under heavy load. Increasing the timeout
>> -reduces the likelihood of false negatives under load.
>> -
>> -Fixes [YOCTO #15625]
>> -
>> -Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [OE testing specific]
>> -
>> -Signed-off-by: Peter Tatrai <peter.tatrai.ext@siemens.com>
>> ----
>> - tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs | 2 +-
>> - 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> -
>> -diff --git a/tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs b/tests/ui/process/process-
>> sigpipe.rs
>> -index 11f363d62..c12d66016 100644
>> ---- a/tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs
>> -+++ b/tests/ui/process/process-sigpipe.rs
>> -@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ use std::thread;
>> - fn main() {
>> -     // Just in case `yes` or `while-echo` doesn't check for EPIPE...
>> -     thread::spawn(|| {
>> --        thread::sleep_ms(5000);
>> -+        thread::sleep_ms(50000);
>> -         process::exit(1);
>> -     });
>> -     // QNX Neutrino does not have `yes`. Therefore, use `while-echo` for `nto`
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc b/meta/recipes-
>> devtools/rust/rust-source.inc
>> index d7d44510e4..3edf0899ab 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/rust/rust-source.inc
>> @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ SRC_URI += "https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/rustc-
>> ${RUST_VERSION}-src.tar.xz;n
>>               file://0001-Define-more-ioctl-codes-on-riscv32gc-unknown-linux-
>> g.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>>               file://rust-oe-selftest.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>>               file://repro-issue-fix-with-cc-crate-hashmap.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>> -            file://oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-
>> ru.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>>               file://0001-src-core-build_steps-tool.rs-switch-off-lto-for-
>> rust.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>>               file://revert-link-std-statically-in-rustc_driver-
>> feature.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>>               file://0001-riscv32-Define-plain-syscalls-as-their-time64-
>> varian.patch;patchdir=${RUSTSRC} \
>> --
>> 2.49.0

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2026-01-21 at 09:14 +0000, Peter Marko via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded-
> > core@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Varatharajan, Deepesh via
> > lists.openembedded.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 8:55
> > To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > Cc: Sundeep.Kokkonda@windriver.com; Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com
> > Subject: [OE-core] [PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-
> > sigpipe-ru.patch
> > 
> > From: Deepesh Varatharajan <Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com>
> > 
> > This patch was originally added to address a rare failure on the PPC
> > target observed in AB. Currently, we are no longer testing the PPC
> > target in OE-Core. Therefore, we can remove this local patch. We have
> > also verified PPC testing locally several times without this patch,
> > and the issue has not reoccurred.
> 
> Was this tested for 32-bit ppc on a build machine which was under some load?
> I wouldn't like to play a remove/re-add game, flaky timing tests have tendency to return.
> It's rather trivial patch which should not be causing any maintenance effort.
> 
> Note that this architecture is not being tested on AB, so the commit message is bit misleading (as it was not observed on Yocto AB).
> Also not being tested in AB is not a good reason to remove something as users are still using it (as a tier-2 feature).
> Note that we're discussing some form of return of Yocto AB testing for 32-bit PPC.

There is a bugzilla ticket number in there:

https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15625

and that shows that it did happen on the yocto project autobuilder when
testing 32 bit PPC. The autobuilder would have been under load and this
happened in 2024 with this fix around a year ago.

I think Deepesh is right, we should see if upstream would be willing to
increase the timeout. Carrying patches like this with no hope of ever
removing them is something we have a natural pressure to try and avoid
it at all possible.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch

[Deepesh Varatharajan]

On 21-01-2026 16:29, Richard Purdie wrote:
> CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> On Wed, 2026-01-21 at 09:14 +0000, Peter Marko via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded-
>>> core@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Varatharajan, Deepesh via
>>> lists.openembedded.org
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 8:55
>>> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>> Cc: Sundeep.Kokkonda@windriver.com; Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com
>>> Subject: [OE-core] [PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-
>>> sigpipe-ru.patch
>>>
>>> From: Deepesh Varatharajan <Deepesh.Varatharajan@windriver.com>
>>>
>>> This patch was originally added to address a rare failure on the PPC
>>> target observed in AB. Currently, we are no longer testing the PPC
>>> target in OE-Core. Therefore, we can remove this local patch. We have
>>> also verified PPC testing locally several times without this patch,
>>> and the issue has not reoccurred.
>> Was this tested for 32-bit ppc on a build machine which was under some load?
>> I wouldn't like to play a remove/re-add game, flaky timing tests have tendency to return.
>> It's rather trivial patch which should not be causing any maintenance effort.
>>
>> Note that this architecture is not being tested on AB, so the commit message is bit misleading (as it was not observed on Yocto AB).
>> Also not being tested in AB is not a good reason to remove something as users are still using it (as a tier-2 feature).
>> Note that we're discussing some form of return of Yocto AB testing for 32-bit PPC.
> There is a bugzilla ticket number in there:
>
> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15625
>
> and that shows that it did happen on the yocto project autobuilder when
> testing 32 bit PPC. The autobuilder would have been under load and this
> happened in 2024 with this fix around a year ago.
>
> I think Deepesh is right, we should see if upstream would be willing to
> increase the timeout. Carrying patches like this with no hope of ever
> removing them is something we have a natural pressure to try and avoid
> it at all possible.

Hi Richard,

How we should proceed further on this? After our discussion, it stayed 
in master-next
for a few weeks but has now been removed. Would it be okay if I resend 
the patch
after rebasing it to the latest sources?

If the mentioned failure shows up again, I can open an upstream ticket and
follow up with the community. Please let me know what you suggest.

Regards,
Deepesh

>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch

[Alexander Kanavin]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 at 09:42, Varatharajan, Deepesh via
lists.openembedded.org
<deepesh.varatharajan=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> > There is a bugzilla ticket number in there:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15625
> >
> > and that shows that it did happen on the yocto project autobuilder when
> > testing 32 bit PPC. The autobuilder would have been under load and this
> > happened in 2024 with this fix around a year ago.
> >
> > I think Deepesh is right, we should see if upstream would be willing to
> > increase the timeout. Carrying patches like this with no hope of ever
> > removing them is something we have a natural pressure to try and avoid
> > it at all possible.
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> How we should proceed further on this? After our discussion, it stayed
> in master-next
> for a few weeks but has now been removed. Would it be okay if I resend
> the patch
> after rebasing it to the latest sources?
>
> If the mentioned failure shows up again, I can open an upstream ticket and
> follow up with the community. Please let me know what you suggest.

Yes, please rebase/resend. I would suggest also to open the upstream
ticket up front, although upstream might ask for hard evidence that
the problem is real, and we don't have any recent/actual evidence.

Alex

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] rust: Drop oeqa-selftest-Increase-timeout-in-process-sigpipe-ru.patch

[Deepesh Varatharajan]

On 11-03-2026 14:44, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 at 09:42, Varatharajan, Deepesh via
> lists.openembedded.org
> <deepesh.varatharajan=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>>> There is a bugzilla ticket number in there:
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15625
>>>
>>> and that shows that it did happen on the yocto project autobuilder when
>>> testing 32 bit PPC. The autobuilder would have been under load and this
>>> happened in 2024 with this fix around a year ago.
>>>
>>> I think Deepesh is right, we should see if upstream would be willing to
>>> increase the timeout. Carrying patches like this with no hope of ever
>>> removing them is something we have a natural pressure to try and avoid
>>> it at all possible.
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> How we should proceed further on this? After our discussion, it stayed
>> in master-next
>> for a few weeks but has now been removed. Would it be okay if I resend
>> the patch
>> after rebasing it to the latest sources?
>>
>> If the mentioned failure shows up again, I can open an upstream ticket and
>> follow up with the community. Please let me know what you suggest.
> Yes, please rebase/resend. I would suggest also to open the upstream
> ticket up front, although upstream might ask for hard evidence that
> the problem is real, and we don't have any recent/actual evidence.
>
> Alex
Hi Alex,

Thanks for the suggestion.

I will rebase the patch onto the latest sources and resend it. Regarding 
the upstream ticket,
since we don't currently have a recent occurrence of the issue with the 
latest Rust versions,
it may be difficult to open a meaningful report without concrete 
evidence or a reproducible
case. Upstream would likely ask for logs or a reproducible setup.

If the issue appears again with the latest Rust, I’ll make sure to 
collect the necessary
details and open an upstream ticket promptly.

Please let me know if this is fine.

Regards,
Deepesh