OK. Xuelei
On 6/15/2016 11:13 AM, Wang Weijun wrote: > 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 >>> >> >
