[LTP] ee

[Richard Palethorpe]

Hello Petr,

Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> writes:

> Hi Richie,
>
> ...
>> > tst_fuzzy_sync01.c:224: TFAIL: acs:1  act:1  art:3  | =:3    -:2999996 +:1   
>
>> It looks like the CI machines are too noisy/contended. The avg_dev is
>> very high. Probably we could relax the dev_ratio threshold to 0.2 or
>> 0.3. Although we would still get failures occassionally. As this is a
>> probabalistic test.
> Test is failing on my laptop, thus haven't enabled it in CI.
> But maybe it'll be working on it more reliably than my busy machine.

Is it really that busy? Perhaps we should increase the dev ratio
threshold. Clearly the deviations from contention are not enough to
reproduce the races, but are enough to prevent the radomization phase.

> But I'd prefer to wasting time with false positives, thus I guess we should
> enable only tests which are working reliably.
>
>> Could you change the script so that it passes so long as the test
>> returns TPASS or TFAIL?
> Well, accepting TFAIL sounds a bit strange to me :).
> Also next effort will be (at least for shell tests) to compare actual test
> output. Obviously that will not be straightforward for some tests, which aren't
> reproducible (avg = 11729ns could be matched by regex, but having more variants
> of results is kind of special case).
>
>> We don't want TBROK, TCONF or no result.
> FYI in my CI patchset is TCONF accepted. Motivation was to not require root for
> make test as some tests needed it. Thus TCONF will be a special case, then I
> guess we could add tst_fuzzy_sync01 accepting TFAIL as a special case.

At least if we run the tests and look for TPASS or TFAIL, we will catch
segfaults and similar.

Also, for fuzzy sync, returning TCONF would be a major error. It should
run on all systems.

>
> Kind regards,
> Petr


-- 
Thank you,
Richard.