Re: increasing default timeout significantly

["Paul E. Murphy" <murphyp at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>]

I think the idea is reasonable.

I've been looking at a number of nptl test
failures on ppc caused by the small timeout.

This would greatly reduce the noise.

On 01/19/2016 04:50 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2016 23:45, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:
>>> in what way ?  there are really only three states:
>>>  - test doesn't set a timeout
>>>    - a passing test doesn't care if you timeout in 2 sec or 1 year
>>>    - a failing test would take longer to timeout now, but that test
>>>      should already be logged, and i don't think this should affect
>>>      the default to the detriment of the common case & valid systems
>>>  - test sets a higher timeout
>>>    - the custom timeout is still used
>>>    - behavior is unchanged
>>>  - test sets a lower timeout
>>>    - the custom timeout is still used
>>>    - behavior is unchanged
>>>
>>> now, if you mean "you should delete the #define TIMEOUT from all tests
>>> whose value is <=20", then yes, that's a cleanup that i'd probably do.
>>> but i wasn't going to bother updating >=50 files if we didn't want to
>>> accept the fundamental change i posted above.
>>
>> That should have been part of the original submission.
> 
> i disagree.  if people don't think the default TIMEOUT should be
> increased, updating 50+ files is a complete waste of my time.  i
> don't like wasting my time..
> -mike
>