Let's use 240 for the moment. If it fails again, maybe it's because of a real bug?
Thanks Max > On Jun 15, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Xuelei Fan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looks fine to me. > > Timeout may occurs intermittent because of the load of the platform. Is > it safer to use a bigger timeout value? For example 320 or 480. > > Thanks, > Xuelei > > On 6/15/2016 10:47 AM, Wang Weijun wrote: >> This test runs slow. I've noticed it timeouts several times with exploded >> build back in the jigsaw forest. Running with an image build should be >> faster but it's still safe to add some extra time. Please take a review: >> >> diff --git a/test/sun/security/tools/jarsigner/concise_jarsigner.sh >> b/test/sun/security/tools/jarsigner/concise_jarsigner.sh >> --- a/test/sun/security/tools/jarsigner/concise_jarsigner.sh >> +++ b/test/sun/security/tools/jarsigner/concise_jarsigner.sh >> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ >> # @bug 6802846 >> # @summary jarsigner needs enhanced cert validation(options) >> # >> -# @run shell concise_jarsigner.sh >> +# @run shell/timeout=240 concise_jarsigner.sh >> # >> >> if [ "${TESTJAVA}" = "" ] ; then >> >> Thanks >> Max >> >
