On 12/12/23 10:29 AM, YiFei Zhu wrote:
We're observing test flakiness on an arm64 platform which might not
have timestamps as precise as x86. The test log looks like:
test_time_tai:PASS:tai_open 0 nsec
test_time_tai:PASS:test_run 0 nsec
test_time_tai:PASS:tai_ts1 0 nsec
test_time_tai:PASS:tai_ts2 0 nsec
test_time_tai:FAIL:tai_forward unexpected tai_forward: actual 1702348135471494160 <= expected 1702348135471494160
test_time_tai:PASS:tai_gettime 0 nsec
test_time_tai:PASS:tai_future_ts1 0 nsec
test_time_tai:PASS:tai_future_ts2 0 nsec
test_time_tai:PASS:tai_range_ts1 0 nsec
test_time_tai:PASS:tai_range_ts2 0 nsec
#199 time_tai:FAIL
This patch changes ASSERT_GT to ASSERT_GE in the tai_forward assertion
so that equal timestamps are permitted.
Fixes: 64e15820b987 ("selftests/bpf: Add BPF-helper test for CLOCK_TAI access")
Signed-off-by: YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/time_tai.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/time_tai.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/time_tai.c
index a31119823666..f45af1b0ef2c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/time_tai.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/time_tai.c
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ void test_time_tai(void)
ASSERT_NEQ(ts2, 0, "tai_ts2");
/* TAI is moving forward only */
- ASSERT_GT(ts2, ts1, "tai_forward");
+ ASSERT_GE(ts2, ts1, "tai_forward");
Can we guard the new change with arm64 specific macro?
/* Check for future */
ret = clock_gettime(CLOCK_TAI, &now_tai);
