On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:01:20 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:13:09PM -0800, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > A gentle reminder.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > SJ
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 09:42:43 -0800 SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 10:30:38 +0000 "Mohamed Abuelfotoh, Hazem" <abuehaze@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 08/02/2024 21:29, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > While mq_perf_tests runs with the default kselftest timeout limit, which
> > > > > is 45 seconds, the test takes about 60 seconds to complete on i3.metal
> > > > > AWS instances. Hence, the test always times out. Increase the timeout
> > > > > to 100 seconds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 852c8cbf34d3 ("selftests/kselftest/runner.sh: Add 45 second timeout per test")
> > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.4.x
> > > > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > tools/testing/selftests/mqueue/setting | 1 +
> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/mqueue/setting
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mqueue/setting b/tools/testing/selftests/mqueue/setting
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 000000000000..54dc12287839
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mqueue/setting
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> > > > > +timeout=100
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.39.2
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Added Vijai Kumar to CC
> > > >
> > > > This looks similar to [PATCH] kselftest: mqueue: increase timeout
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220622085911.2292509-1-Vijaikumar_Kanagarajan@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#r12820aede6bba015b70ae33323e29ae27d5b69c7
> > > > which was increasing the timeout to 180 however it's not clear why this
> > > > hasn't been merged yet.
>
> Should it be 100 or 180?
As mentioned on the previous mail[1], either values are good to me :)
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240215011309.73168-1-sj@xxxxxxxxxx
> Either way:
>
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you!
Thanks,
SJ
>
> --
> Kees Cook
>
