On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:36:24PM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:35:53AM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote:
> > > stat -c '%Y' report seconds as int, so the delta 2.01s may result as 3s.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wang Yugui <wangyugui@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > tests/generic/297 | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tests/generic/297 b/tests/generic/297
> > > index 6bdc3e1c..e3082202 100755
> > > --- a/tests/generic/297
> > > +++ b/tests/generic/297
> > > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ for i in $(seq 0 $fnr); do
> > > touch $TEST_DIR/after
> > > before=$(stat -c '%Y' $TEST_DIR/before)
> > > after=$(stat -c '%Y' $TEST_DIR/after)
> > > - delta=$((after - before))
> > > + delta=$((after - before -1)) # 2.01s may result as 3s; so -1
> >
> > What issue is this change trying to fix? "timeout=8"s is not long enough?
>
> for the command
> $TIMEOUT_PROG -s INT ${kill_after}s
>
> delta=$((after - before )) may report 'kill_after+1' in some case.
>
> so no relationship to "timeout=8" or "timeout=2".
>
> '$XFS_IO_PROG -f -c reflink' without '$TIMEOUT_PROG -s INT ${kill_after}s'
> may take 20s because this is a very complex reflink.
Hmm... still don't understand what are you trying to fix.
That reflink operation need long time, that's expected. The first time it's
running in a while loop for getting a proper testing size, no matter 8.01s
or 9s, I think it's all good.
The second time the reflink run with `TIMEOUT_PROG 2s`, we expect it can be
killed in 'timeout=8s', that's long enough. I think it's not necessary to
care about it's keep running in 8.01s or 9s.
Thanks,
Zorro
>
> Best Regards
> Wang Yugui (wangyugui@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
> 2022/06/10
>
>
>
