From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] lsmod01.sh: retry test couple times to lower false positives
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:49:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191024074907.GA10174@dell5510> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEemH2dGc-y4yfduw4N=ecwRydXqmEGmG8-eKBxmAxCxL2iEHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Li, Jan,
...
> > > I wonder if we need to TBROK in TST_RETRY_FUNC(). We could just return
> > > what the FUNC returns and let the test decide.
> > > TST_RETRY_FUNC_BRK() could be a wrapper that TBROKs on timeout.
> > That could work (apart from the fact it diverges the functionality from C).
> > + there could be the third one, which TPASS/TFAIL (instead of
> > nothing/TBROK).
> > But this should be based on TST_RETRY_FN_EXP_BACKOFF (TST_RETRY_FUNC is
> > reusing
> > TST_RETRY_FN_EXP_BACKOFF) + add also TST_RETRY_FUNC wrappers.
> > Do we need similar functionality in C?
> Not sure, but we could collect the requirement for the EXP_BACKOFF series
> macro. I'm also thinking about to extend the functionality for more
> situations.
> e.g http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2019-October/013896.html
+1 for @INFI - 1: retry infinitely, 0: retry in limit times
Combining with TPASS/TFAIL vs. nothing/TBROK it might make sense to either use
enum flags for C implementation, which would save one parameter and allow
further extension. Shell could have getopts instead of more parameters.
And it's a question whether cover all variants with wrappers like
TST_RETRY_FUNC* or not.
Kind regards,
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-24 7:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-18 10:05 [LTP] [PATCH] lsmod01.sh: retry test couple times to lower false positives Jan Stancek
2019-10-18 13:23 ` Petr Vorel
2019-10-18 13:27 ` Jan Stancek
2019-10-18 13:45 ` Petr Vorel
2019-10-22 7:10 ` Jan Stancek
2019-10-23 12:19 ` Petr Vorel
2019-10-23 13:28 ` Jan Stancek
2019-10-23 18:28 ` Petr Vorel
2019-10-24 4:47 ` Li Wang
2019-10-24 7:49 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2019-10-24 7:12 ` Jan Stancek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191024074907.GA10174@dell5510 \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.