At 2002/7/22 10:19-0700 Wichmann, Mats D writes: > > > > I think that the test is wrong, and will fail on any Linux machine > > with HZ != 100. With a higher click we have more play in the > > numbers. The itimer spec is a little vague on the exact semantics, > > though. > > Thanks for the pointer. What I read in the sus under > setitimer/getitimer suggests that if the implementation > can't precisely represent, e.g. 10,000 microseconds, it > can round it up. With a 100 Hz clock, it works out that > it can precisely represent it, but not with a 1024 hz > clock like the Itanium uses. Thus I think I agree the > test questionable, it should be allowing for up to a > one-tick overage. > > In my error cases, I'm over by 736, 496 and 256 microseconds. > One tick at 1024/sec is 977 microseconds, so I guess I > think these tests pass :-)
I agree, this looks like a test suite bug to me. Mats, could you submit a bug report about this? Thanks, Chris -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group Canberra, Australia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
