Hi, I filed
https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/issues/4 Regards, Simon On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 05:58, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:22:30AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > On 27/10/2021 15.22, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:43:38PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > > >> Hi Simon, > > >> > > >> gitlab reported the following test error below: > > >> > > >> =================================== FAILURES > > >> =================================== > > >> __________________________ test_ut[ut_dm_rtc_set_get] > > >> __________________________ > > >> test/py/tests/test_ut.py:43: in test_ut > > >> assert output.endswith('Failures: 0') > > >> E AssertionError: assert False > > >> E + where False = <built-in method endswith of str object at > > >> 0x7f3bb792dcb0>('Failures: 0') > > >> E + where <built-in method endswith of str object at 0x7f3bb792dcb0> = > > >> 'Test: dm_test_rtc_set_get: rtc.c\r\r\nexpected: 27/10/2021 > > >> 03:38:15\r\r\nactual: 27/10/2021 03:38:14\r\r\ntest/dm/rtc...w, &cmp, > > >> 1): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0xffffffea (-22)\r\r\nTest: > > >> dm_test_rtc_set_get: rtc.c (flat tree)\r\r\nFailures: 1'.endswith > > >> ----------------------------- Captured stdout call > > >> ----------------------------- > > >> => > > >> > > >> See https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-x86/-/jobs/341905 > > >> > > >> But the same branch same commit, azure test results passed: > > >> https://dev.azure.com/bmeng/GitHub/_build/results?buildId=460&view=results > > >> > > >> It looks like the error is an off-by-one where actual time is 1 second > > >> behind the expected time? > > >> > > >> expected: 27/10/2021 03:38:15 > > >> actual: 27/10/2021 03:38:14 > > >> > > >> Is this a known issue? > > > > > > Yes, which is why the test checks for a certain amount of "fuzz" around > > > the return value. > > > > You said the same thing about dm_test_rtc_reset() in > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20210831124441.GC858@bill-the-cat/ , but > > I can't find anything about any fuzz in the code. Could you point out > > where you think that's implemented? In both cases, the expected and > > actual values were just 1 from each other, and I fail to see how any > > fuzz value could be smaller than that. > > > > I've wondered about if we need to increase that value > > > slightly sometimes, or just live with hitting the re-run failed jobs > > > button on whatever CI system was a bit too slow sometimes. > > > > It has nothing to do with a CI being slow, it's plain and simple buggy > > test code AFAICT. It's essentially "assert(time(NULL) == time(NULL))". > > If a call to time() takes 1us, do this a million times and it will on > > average fail once. Obviously, a loaded system increases the chance of > > being preempted between the two calls and hence effectively increases > > the delta and proportionally the probability of hitting this. > > You're right, I confused this with the sleep test, which does have a bit > of fuzz to it. > > -- > Tom