On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.ve...@intel.com> wrote: > > The device-dax test used heuristic timeouts for distinction between > cached and uncached accesses. The timeout was too short for emulated > e820 on a virtual machine. Increased the cached timeout to ~30ms, which > still keeps it significantly far from the cached time of 200ms. > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.ve...@intel.com> > --- > test/device-dax.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/test/device-dax.c b/test/device-dax.c > index dd92f9a..46580fc 100644 > --- a/test/device-dax.c > +++ b/test/device-dax.c > @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ static void sigbus(int sig, siginfo_t *siginfo, void *d) > * 3.00GHz where the loop, for the align == 2M case, completes in 7500us > * when cached and 200ms when uncached. > */ > -#define VERIFY_TIME(x) (suseconds_t) ((ALIGN(x, SZ_2M) / SZ_4K) * 30) > +#define VERIFY_TIME(x) (suseconds_t) ((ALIGN(x, SZ_2M) / SZ_4K) * 60)
Looks good to me, I knew it was only a matter of time before we found an environment that violated the expectation. Any bets on if we'll ever need to touch it again? Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
