On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:54 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi! > > I don't have prior experience with LTP tests, but from reading the > > code it looks reasonable to me. > > > > I assume that .needs_tmpdir = 1 ensures that each test runs in its own > > new temp dir, which is later removed. > > Indeed, it's removed recursively by the test library. :popcorn: It took me several years to figure out how to more or less reliably remove dirs after the fuzzer ;) (no, unlink won't do ;)) > > I've stared for a while at "rem / exec_time_start < 0.98" trying to > > understand what is that tst_timeout_remaining() returns that we want > > to kill that process when the ratio is < 0.98... provided that we > > convert 1 to float but not the other var. I failed to come up with the > > answer. I have potential answers for "<0.02" and ">0.98". But I assume > > you know what you are doing :) Ah, I see, it's not full timeout, then it makes sense. Probably a comment won't harm. > The tst_timeout_remaining() returns remaining test timeout, so at test > start it returns something close to 300 seconds, since that is a default > for a LTP tests, so this would probably kill a process quite fast, if > I'm reading right, after a bit more than five seconds. I guess that this > is something intended for a quick v1 hack rather than for later use. > > > Re tst_res(TINFO, "Timeout; killing reproducer"). Not sure how much it > > pollutes output on 3000 tests. If it is, it can make sense to remove > > it. Lots of tests run forever, killing it is not something of > > particular interest generally. > > I guess so. > > -- > Cyril Hrubis > chrubis@xxxxxxx
