Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 22:46:26 -0500 Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:31:44 -0500 Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > > All three timestamping flakes are instances where the script expects > > > > the timestamp to be taken essentially instantaneously after the send > > > > call. > > > > > > > > This is not the case, and the delay is outside even the 14K tolerance. > > > > I see occurrences of 20K. At some point we cannot keep increasing the > > > > tolerance, perhaps. > > > > > > I pinned the other services away and gave the packetdrill tester its > > > own cores. Let's see how much of a difference this makes. > > > The net-next-2024-12-20--03-00 branch will be the first to have this. > > > > Thanks. It does not seem to resolve the flakes. > > > > At this point I think the best path is to run them in debug mode to > > get coverage, but ignore errors. With the below draft patch, error > > output is still logged. For instance: > > > > # tcp_timestamping_partial.pkt:58: runtime error in recvmsg call: Bad timestamp 0 in scm_timestamping 0: expected=1734924748967958 (20000) actual=1734924748982069 (34111) start=1734924748947958 > > # ok 2 ipv6 # SKIP > > Makes sense. Can we make this XFAIL instead of SKIP, tho? > Not exactly accurate but we try to use SKIP for reporting env / setup > problems like missing commands. We have FAIL_TO_XFAIL and > xfail_on_slow() in the lib for netdev bash tests, already. Sounds good. I'll add a ktap_test_xfail() to stay with that API. I see no clean way to make use of xfail_on_slow directly. When net-next reopens, unless the noisy dash is annoying.
