On 4/29/26 7:18 PM, Alison Schofield wrote:
> This test verifies that wait-sanitize blocks for the programmed
> timeout after issuing sanitize on an inactive memdev.
>
> The sanitize request is issued in the background and wait-sanitize
> is called immediately after. In cxl_test, sanitize completes
> asynchronously via delayed work, and the sysfs write does not block.
> This creates a race where wait-sanitize may run before sanitize is
> observed and return immediately.
>
> This test has been reliable since its introduction, but recently
> started failing consistently in one environment, suggesting a
> timing sensitivity. It fails here:
>
> ((SECONDS > start + 2)) || err $LINENO
>
> Add a short delay after backgrounding the sanitize write to make
> sure that wait-sanitize can observe the in-progress operation.
>
> A sysfs-based synchronization was considered, but no in-progress
> state is exposed to user space.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield <[email protected]>
Looks reasonable
Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <[email protected]>
> ---
> test/cxl-sanitize.sh | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/test/cxl-sanitize.sh b/test/cxl-sanitize.sh
> index 9c161014ccb7..d1ed598f3663 100644
> --- a/test/cxl-sanitize.sh
> +++ b/test/cxl-sanitize.sh
> @@ -68,6 +68,9 @@ done
> set_timeout $inactive 3000
> start=$SECONDS
> echo 1 > /sys/bus/cxl/devices/${inactive}/security/sanitize &
> +
> +# Allow background sanitize to start before wait-sanitize can observe it
> +sleep 1
> "$CXL" wait-sanitize $inactive || err $LINENO
> ((SECONDS > start + 2)) || err $LINENO
>
