On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 10:06:18 -0500 Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > Willem, do you still want us to apply this as is or should we do > > the 10x only if [ x$KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW != x ] ? > > If the test passes on all platforms with this change, I think that's > still preferable. > > The only downside is that it will take 10x runtime. But that will > continue on debug and virtualized builds anyway. > > On the upside, the awesome dash does indicate that it passes as is on > non-debug metal instances: > > https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/contest.html?test=txtimestamp-sh > > Let me know if you want me to use this as a testcase for > $KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW. Ah, all good, I thought your increasing the acceptance criteria. > Otherwise I'll start with the gro and so-txtime tests. They may not > be so easily calibrated. As we cannot control the gro timeout, nor > the FQ max horizon. Paolo also mentioned working on GRO, maybe we need a spreadsheet for people to "reserve" broken tests to avoid duplicating work? :S > In such cases we can use the environment variable to either skip the > test entirely or --my preference-- run it to get code coverage, but > suppress a failure if due to timing (only). Sounds good? +1 I also think we should run and ignore failure. I was wondering if we can swap FAIL for XFAIL in those cases: tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h #define KSFT_XFAIL 2 Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst - "XFAIL", which indicates that a test is expected to fail. This is similar to "TODO", above, and is used by some kselftest tests. IDK if that's a stretch or not. Or we can just return PASS with a comment?
