On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > On 17/01/2025 at 13:21:58 GMT, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If you're hitting a timeout that tends to indicate there's already a > > serious stability problem... > Yes, unless the timeout is reached for "good reasons", ie. you request > substantial amounts of data (typically from a memory device) and the > timeout is too short compared to the theoretical time spent in the > transfer. A loaded machine can also increase the number of false > positives I guess. I'd argue that all of those are bad reasons, I'd only expect us to time out when there's a bug - choosing too low a timeout or doing things in a way that generates timeouts under load is a problem.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
