On Wed, 7 May 2025 at 18:01, Konstantin Shkolnyy <k...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > On 07-May-25 10:41, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > On Wed, 7 May 2025 at 17:15, Konstantin Shkolnyy <k...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > >> These tests: > >> "SOCK_STREAM ioctl(SIOCOUTQ) 0 unsent bytes" > >> "SOCK_SEQPACKET ioctl(SIOCOUTQ) 0 unsent bytes" > >> output: "Unexpected 'SIOCOUTQ' value, expected 0, got 64 (CLIENT)". > >> > >> They test that the SIOCOUTQ ioctl reports 0 unsent bytes after the data > >> have been received by the other side. However, sometimes there is a delay > >> in updating this "unsent bytes" counter, and the test fails even though > >> the counter properly goes to 0 several milliseconds later. > >> > >> The delay occurs in the kernel because the used buffer notification > >> callback virtio_vsock_tx_done(), called upon receipt of the data by the > >> other side, doesn't update the counter itself. It delegates that to > >> a kernel thread (via vsock->tx_work). Sometimes that thread is delayed > >> more than the test expects. > >> > >> Change the test to poll SIOCOUTQ until it returns 0 or a timeout occurs. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Shkolnyy <k...@linux.ibm.com> > >> --- > >> Changes in v2: > >> - Use timeout_check() to end polling, instead of counting iterations. > > > > Why removing the sleep? > > I just imagined that whoever uses SIOCOUTQ might want to repeat it > without a delay, so why not do it, it's a test. Is there a reason to > insert a sleep? >
Okay, now that I think back on it, it's the same thing I thought of when I did this. I guess in v1 the sleep was just to limit the number of cycles. LGTM: Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarz...@redhat.com>
