Hello Sebastian,
thanks for the comments
On Tuesday 19 of July 2016 11:48:07 Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Pavel,
>
> On 14/07/16 15:04, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> > The overflow of 64-bit ticks and 34 bit for seconds packed timespec
> > format is not probable but I would like to see support for infinite
> > operation there even if it cost halving range of the most distant
> > timeouts.
>
> with the 34-bits for seconds, we have a year 2514 problem. The 64-bit
> ticks counter overflows with a 1ns tick interval in about 586 years. So,
> nothing to worry about from my point of view.
I agree that it is not practically required.
Please, can you clarify, if packed timespec format
is used for both queues
PER_CPU_WATCHDOG_RELATIVE,
PER_CPU_WATCHDOG_ABSOLUTE,
(my initial reading is that they use different
encoding) and if PER_CPU_WATCHDOG_RELATIVE can be
considered as CLOCK_MONOTONIC and real time clocks
corrections go only to PER_CPU_WATCHDOG_ABSOLUTE.
Best wishes,
Pavel
PS: have you some remarks to my cache and RPI series
or it can be pushes.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
