On 07-May-25 10:41, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2025 at 17:15, Konstantin Shkolnyy <k...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:These tests: "SOCK_STREAM ioctl(SIOCOUTQ) 0 unsent bytes" "SOCK_SEQPACKET ioctl(SIOCOUTQ) 0 unsent bytes" output: "Unexpected 'SIOCOUTQ' value, expected 0, got 64 (CLIENT)". They test that the SIOCOUTQ ioctl reports 0 unsent bytes after the data have been received by the other side. However, sometimes there is a delay in updating this "unsent bytes" counter, and the test fails even though the counter properly goes to 0 several milliseconds later. The delay occurs in the kernel because the used buffer notification callback virtio_vsock_tx_done(), called upon receipt of the data by the other side, doesn't update the counter itself. It delegates that to a kernel thread (via vsock->tx_work). Sometimes that thread is delayed more than the test expects. Change the test to poll SIOCOUTQ until it returns 0 or a timeout occurs. Signed-off-by: Konstantin Shkolnyy <k...@linux.ibm.com> --- Changes in v2: - Use timeout_check() to end polling, instead of counting iterations.Why removing the sleep?
I just imagined that whoever uses SIOCOUTQ might want to repeat it without a delay, so why not do it, it's a test. Is there a reason to insert a sleep?
