Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

hwclock/systohc seems to be flaky on Travis CI #1082

Closed
evverx opened this issue Jun 29, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

hwclock/systohc seems to be flaky on Travis CI #1082

evverx opened this issue Jun 29, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@evverx
Copy link
Member

evverx commented Jun 29, 2020

To judge from https://travis-ci.org/github/karelzak/util-linux/jobs/703166322, it seems the test fails from time to time with

      hwclock: system to hw                   ... FAILED (offsets 216.218.254.202: +0.018064 -0.998979 +/-1.017043)
@karelzak
Copy link
Collaborator

Hmm... frankly use hwlock in this environment is probably fragile. I guess it's some container or virtual machine and in this case do anything with HW clock or assume small latencies is a bad idea.

Maybe we can detect that at the beginning of the test that it's virtual machine or container and call ts_skip rather than execute the test (or introduce ts_skip_nonhw function).

@evverx
Copy link
Member Author

evverx commented Jul 2, 2020

I run that test in VMs and containers and it seems to be fine there so I'd probably skip it on Travis CI only for the time being.

Looking at https://travis-ci.org/github/karelzak/util-linux/jobs/704172347 where it's just failed, it seems it happens on Travis CI when dist is precise so probably I could call ts_skip when those conditions are met. I need to figure out what environment variables I should check though.

evverx added a commit to evverx/util-linux that referenced this issue Jul 2, 2020
evverx added a commit to evverx/util-linux that referenced this issue Jul 2, 2020
@evverx
Copy link
Member Author

evverx commented Jul 3, 2020

It should be addressed in #1090

@evverx evverx closed this as completed Jul 3, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants