On 1/15/19 6:14 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 14.01.19 18:35, Philippe Gerum wrote: >> clock_decrease_after_periodic_timer_first_tick checks that periodic >> interval timers based on CLOCK_REALTIME are not (pathologically) >> affected by the epoch going backwards. >> >> To this end, we measure the actual time observed between two ticks of >> a periodic timer based on CLOCK_REALTIME with a call to >> clock_settime() injecting a negative offset in between, equivalent to >> five ticks. >> >> Due to processing delays induced by clock_settime() and other latency, >> we could observe a duration which exceeds a tick by a few tenths of >> microseconds. Since we can't anticipate the amount of latency >> involved, let's accept a longer delay of at most two ticks. >> >> This is still correct from the standpoint of the test, which verifies >> that no correlation exists between the clock offset injected by >> clock_settime() and the delay until the next tick generated by the >> affected clock. >> >> Signed-off-by: Philippe Gerum <[email protected]> >> --- >> testsuite/smokey/posix-clock/posix-clock.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/testsuite/smokey/posix-clock/posix-clock.c >> b/testsuite/smokey/posix-clock/posix-clock.c >> index f672a9d52..3a638d41f 100644 >> --- a/testsuite/smokey/posix-clock/posix-clock.c >> +++ b/testsuite/smokey/posix-clock/posix-clock.c >> @@ -417,7 +417,7 @@ static int >> clock_decrease_after_periodic_timer_first_tick(void) >> diff = now.tv_sec * 1000000000ULL + now.tv_nsec - >> (timer.it_value.tv_sec * 1000000000ULL + >> timer.it_value.tv_nsec); >> - if (!smokey_assert(diff < 1000000000)) >> + if (!smokey_assert(diff < 2000000000)) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> ret = smokey_check_errno(read(t, &ticks, sizeof(ticks))); >> > > OK, this apparently addresses the issue Henning once brought up. > > You sent the patch again outside of the queue but both look identical. > Will take this one. >
The second one fixes the shortlog. > Finally: All 5 a also stable material as it looks like, right? > I think so. -- Philippe.
