From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ECF3A04FA; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:47:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBB11C2F9; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:47:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08D61C2F7 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:47:54 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1580928473; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=64I6iDlPuQRYZb3M1XfpAnQYSIKtNGSCYUZyDHxXhO4=; b=JZeUx1jZJ+d4YEVpqjP67OEjL/Hh5a2EjzNldf9qN+5r6qjK9DHK7SKTu8ZZJAFOfXcLPL cfE9bQ8NFobE+ZKjv5FgjsZAEhC2Ml+a9lrniFhbgozM8ZCZUzm8HXUof/6m3QDL5wpAXW gz1RQ677AN3OchK4sx/mw1OmCyW9/V0= Received: from mail-vk1-f198.google.com (mail-vk1-f198.google.com [209.85.221.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-238-OfSvE9F9PyKJm95Oo_ndYA-1; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 13:47:49 -0500 Received: by mail-vk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id w23so951749vke.15 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 10:47:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=G40JLMQoePfRE1Qrpp7jtRC0jEPsgeFQuoU8zB9AxWo=; b=PwvTm4MNYb7DF3W1dNoe0wNbaQD8+RneyAMcnwEJSC+FKRMkMvmU+fW5S1qh42eKpU dcqIdyOHnnerw8B74wcwAQRS4CM67kPPwn3nvG1eCqd+DOPXeQ/tcThmf2iPP+ZX44h/ Mhlfin2MkgbfJx8sjtpgdzEoPh22YZAl4Z6dv4yaDIODr2cGn8R2xe1AgpXMDDO4KusL 3e0GnuehdXwaeSTItIlwjkH13J26RFYkKb0lW9Uv50wtA7YfYmvgFMc1QjPAFeARF8xO SIw05qfCI6M/iBz0hz8BBg6toW38gPkpnDhxs325nnhFyJzOay9S6vCNRK8tP9QSu4W+ AW3g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWGCFWswmTF39D7bXwy5+HS8ctrebvVCasndz+hahKYGB6Q+DFj EeiGY6DDCd2E6/1q0Ry+DjEO3KT+j02R6u1E1apFzGkoZ2p3/9jMSdoSrueKRItjIPZRfuf0DYQ 4Jg6jbBaP/BjALmspGC4= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e342:: with SMTP id s2mr22382950vsm.198.1580928468801; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 10:47:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqybEjvi5R11wSPZDavvR8IYBboO7ZTMa5gIOzGBE6SV6uXTAAlTRDGsC4UfTumoJgX2NO+72WYrH050CLOIsaY= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e342:: with SMTP id s2mr22382934vsm.198.1580928468540; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 10:47:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200128162854.3367823-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <36007098.10thIPus4b@xps> In-Reply-To: <36007098.10thIPus4b@xps> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:47:36 +0100 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Ferruh Yigit , Aaron Conole , Amit Gupta , dev , Michael Santana , "Wang, Yipeng1" , Honnappa Nagarahalli X-MC-Unique: OfSvE9F9PyKJm95Oo_ndYA-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ci: increase unit test timeout X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:03 PM Thomas Monjalon wrot= e: > > 28/01/2020 21:53, Aaron Conole: > > Ferruh Yigit writes: > > > > > Timeout multiplier was 3, which gives 30 seconds for unit test but st= ill > > > some unit test was timing out time to time and travis reporting false > > > positive failures. > > > > > > Increasing the multiplier to 10, which makes timeout duration > > > 100seconds. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit > > > --- > > > > It's okay to me. I thought there was an effort to split out performanc= e > > part of this test from the functional part, but that seems to not have > > gone anywhere. > > > > Acked-by: Aaron Conole > > NACK > The fix should be to split perf tests out of fast-tests. > > The following patch is splitting hash_readwrite_autotest: > https://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/58726/ > But we are still waiting for a patch splitting hash_readwrite_lf_autotest= . > Please consider working on unit tests as a HIGH PRIORITY (using uppercase= ;). > We should not have to wait so long to see performance tests removed > from fast unit tests (while keeping the functional coverage). Just applied series https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=3D8401&state=3D*. So marking this patch as rejected. Thanks. --=20 David Marchand