From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 45427 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2015 12:48:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 45410 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2015 12:48:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:48:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F03BC0B989C; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t8ACmPW0005103; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:48:26 -0400 Message-ID: <55F17C19.3040209@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:48:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Metzger, Markus T" CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] btrace: non-stop References: <1441794909-32718-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1441794909-32718-14-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <55F01DEC.4030209@redhat.com> <55F03852.7030200@redhat.com> <55F04765.9020206@redhat.com> <55F163DD.4050809@redhat.com> <55F16A58.8070403@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 On 09/10/2015 12:37 PM, Metzger, Markus T wrote: >> Ah, I had totally misunderstood it! I thought you were saying that a >> failing run took a bit long to trigger, so I left it running for a >> while. In fact, I still had it running. :-) > > I meant that when a test fails, we are now waiting for the timeout. > Before, we caught the error message. So running the test might take > longer if there are fails. Gotcha. I suggest only worrying about timeouts if/when we regress at some point and decide that we need to xfail/kfail then. > > I forgot to mention that you need to revert one of the preceding > patches to trigger a fail;-) Thanks, Pedro Alves