From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914BC41E06; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:49:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705EE40EDB; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:49:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39634067B for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:49:02 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1678196942; 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=wqlgIlvHtpjwzPJBzlomBdowia7h47R7DTUaqZlYXt4=; b=WPYdBShjqJBnLcw6Nco4PJcgaoPKJ4GbsToaOZ9ViJp3aEyauyaAkfYfwHTAQkbqioVQ3B c3EK71je9M9DnQp10hoQH/goaiKUdf+DO3hWVCqCaI0a9h9bpJx0iNXKXLrRaBoiOm8flQ MEh9gqAyZ3nkYTPH8y9zwV7geyjyQSo= Received: from mail-pj1-f69.google.com (mail-pj1-f69.google.com [209.85.216.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-149-l0D8jSvTPXWe63HoC32Vxw-1; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 08:48:58 -0500 X-MC-Unique: l0D8jSvTPXWe63HoC32Vxw-1 Received: by mail-pj1-f69.google.com with SMTP id m6-20020a17090a668600b002375cbab773so8097812pjj.9 for ; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:48:58 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678196937; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=wqlgIlvHtpjwzPJBzlomBdowia7h47R7DTUaqZlYXt4=; b=6BZCYmJaDgXexiDXPRTFI7OLTILbkPX4Ok30XLHxsihHSNo1Owxbk/nTZc3jU6T7Nh 39x9/5wLZwel2wIZWlWPFEHtYjwgncaFffKy2eJ7TLK2OXXo7z1i3MI6PRCiE2ts0t5o h0Dz2xbJ4nDYyFP9ufaPCcAxY8RF1VsJvmqgdv0R1K1MPneDY3DGVw24muMl6luHKcpS gCoN/mrOdPwcBPuisl3W3yS0m9mmpMfyjjOPxBGbuoK28jW/IaE9qsbaFzARm1dd9Gze ooXpCo0aby5xMEGa77UZkT6w91v1fH4wWPsaAUx7Wer4VVa2FqiVoRUOvqQ1GCgckz3f bwdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWXNqGDVb0ecWjGnb4gy7tUtzilV7kiYHup4JnFsIJD0mNcdxbi bBivgRPMeWG4muVQlJ/jjxSMDQRcOd1GqO0iE1xbZf/x9Y3q4pimTMB3xrT/BUSDvuSurZo2GRd N14adC2vAasVWHxLR1Eo= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:2dcd:b0:237:64dc:5acd with SMTP id q13-20020a17090a2dcd00b0023764dc5acdmr5455800pjm.7.1678196937425; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:48:57 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/ISVRyoMgS9qoApNXxR9vGFgo41geszl7Z6boFECSXehwY4BOHNzf9fG9WILWh55YR0VJktQqhSPH1gC5CYLA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:2dcd:b0:237:64dc:5acd with SMTP id q13-20020a17090a2dcd00b0023764dc5acdmr5455789pjm.7.1678196937115; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:48:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230224173637.243266-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:48:46 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] service: split tests to perf and autotest to avoid spurious CI failures To: "Van Haaren, Harry" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "dpdklab@iol.unh.edu" , "ci@dpdk.org" , "Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com" , "mattias.ronnblom" , "mb@smartsharesystems.com" , "roretzla@linux.microsoft.com" , "aconole@redhat.com" , "Richardson, Bruce" X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 11:59=E2=80=AFAM Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > > + .setup =3D testsuite_setup, > > > + .teardown =3D testsuite_teardown, > > > + .unit_test_cases =3D { > > > + TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_attr_get), > > > + TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_lcore_attr= _get), > > > + TEST_CASE_ST(dummy_register, NULL, service_lcore_star= t_stop), > > > > Looking at service_lcore_running_check(), don't you think > > service_may_be_active() and service_active_two_cores() are also > > subject to race? > > Perhaps, but those haven't *actually* been failing in any of the reports. > I'd prefer leave tests running if they're not causing issues in the CI. service_may_be_active did fail in the near past (report from October that triggered the discussion and the timeout extension patch). So my fear is that we will see some ocurrences. Time will tell. --=20 David Marchand