Hi On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:32 PM Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/13/17 12:47, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 12 July 2017 at 00:43, Ben Warren <b...@skyportsystems.com> wrote: > >> Yes, it’s definitely a setup time problem. With the values that are > checked > >> in, I can’t get it to fail on my setup, but if I wind the numbers down > I see > >> the same failure as Peter. So now we have the ages-old problem of > “what new > >> arbitrary value should I use that will not cause false failures but will > >> eventually time out”. > > > > Empirically, we already have an answer to this, in the form > > of the existing code in tests/boot-sector.c, which is used > > by both that test and the bios-tables-test.c code to wait > > for the BIOS initialization to complete, and which doesn't > > cause false test timeouts in practice. > > > > Can we make this test just use that existing function to > > wait for the BIOS to be done, rather than having its own > > timeout loop? > > This is incredibly cool. Now that I've looked at "tests/boot-sector.c" > (again), I recall having seen it earlier, but I couldn't have remembered > it off-hand. > > Perhaps this boot sector code should be factored out and moved to > "tests/acpi-utils". > > Marc-André, do you think it would be feasible for the vmcoreinfo unit > test as well? (Which is derived from the vmgenid unit test.) > It seems likely. Ben, are you going to work on the fix? Thanks -- Marc-André Lureau
