Hello Joel, I had sent a v3 patch https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-April/059603.html, but it somehow went unnoticed. This may need a bit of fine-tuning, and I plan to pursue it after my GSoC ends (I have too many things on my plate right now :))
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:46 AM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > What's the status of this test? The last email seems to indicate it needed > further work before being merged. > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:16 AM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:11 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:56 PM Sebastian Huber >>> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hello Utkarsh Rai, >>> > >>> > do we really need a new test program for this test case? I would prefer >>> > add it to an existing test program or add a generic POSIX test program >>> > using the RTEMS Test Framework. >>> > >>> I would also recommend this, or perhaps develop a test for clock >>> monotonic that encompasses several features (as done with clock >>> realtime). >>> >> >> In theory, the clock monotonic test could be the clock realtime one >> reused >> with the clock type changed. There are a few cases of doing something >> similar. >> The behavior is supposed to be the same for delays. >> >> Missing in this discussion and maybe what Gedare is hinting at is that you >> any sleep/delay/etc type of operation is never specified as a precise >> delay, >> it is a minimum delay. The minimum may be set by clock tick time quantum, >> other threads, processes, etc. The POSIX standard has precise language >> about this for clock_nanosleep. From >> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/clock_nanosleep.html >> >> "The suspension time caused by this function may be longer than requested >> because the argument value is rounded up to an integer multiple of the >> sleep resolution, or because of the scheduling of other activity by the >> system." >> >> --joel >> >> >>> > On 14/04/2020 19:17, Utkarsh Rai wrote: >>> > > This test checks for a simple 1 ns delay with clock_nanosleep with >>> > > CLOCK_MONOTONIC. >>> > > --- >>> > > testsuites/psxtests/Makefile.am | 9 +++ >>> > > testsuites/psxtests/configure.ac | 1 + >>> > > .../psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01/init.c | 81 >>> +++++++++++++++++++ >>> > > .../psxclocknanosleep01.doc | 10 +++ >>> > > .../psxclocknanosleep01.scn | 3 + >>> > > 5 files changed, 104 insertions(+) >>> > > create mode 100644 testsuites/psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01/init.c >>> > > create mode 100644 >>> testsuites/psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01/psxclocknanosleep01.doc >>> > > create mode 100644 >>> testsuites/psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01/psxclocknanosleep01.scn >>> > > >>> > > diff --git a/testsuites/psxtests/Makefile.am >>> b/testsuites/psxtests/Makefile.am >>> > > index 1f9e4233ec..e3918ae7a5 100755 >>> > > --- a/testsuites/psxtests/Makefile.am >>> > > +++ b/testsuites/psxtests/Makefile.am >>> > > @@ -321,6 +321,15 @@ psxclockrealtime01_CPPFLAGS = $(AM_CPPFLAGS) \ >>> > > $(TEST_FLAGS_psxclockrealtime01) $(support_includes) >>> > > endif >>> > > >>> > > +if TEST_psxclocknanosleep01 >>> > > +psx_tests += psxclocknanosleep01 >>> > > +psx_screens += psxclocknanosleep01/psxclocknanosleep01.scn >>> > > +psx_docs += psxclocknanosleep01/psxclocknanosleep01.doc >>> > > +psxclocknanosleep01_SOURCES = psxclocknanosleep01/init.c >>> > > +psxclocknanosleep01_CPPFLAGS = $(AM_CPPFLAGS) \ >>> > > + $(TEST_FLAGS_psxclocknanosleep01) $(support_includes) >>> > > +endif >>> > > + >>> > > if TEST_psxconcurrency01 >>> > > psx_tests += psxconcurrency01 >>> > > psx_screens += psxconcurrency01/psxconcurrency01.scn >>> > > diff --git a/testsuites/psxtests/configure.ac b/testsuites/psxtests/ >>> configure.ac >>> > > index 139787cccb..9bfe8e2c0b 100644 >>> > > --- a/testsuites/psxtests/configure.ac >>> > > +++ b/testsuites/psxtests/configure.ac >>> > > @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ RTEMS_TEST_CHECK([psxcleanup01]) >>> > > RTEMS_TEST_CHECK([psxcleanup02]) >>> > > RTEMS_TEST_CHECK([psxclock]) >>> > > RTEMS_TEST_CHECK([psxclock01]) >>> > > +RTEMS_TEST_CHECK([psxclocknanosleep01]) >>> > > RTEMS_TEST_CHECK([psxclockrealtime01]) >>> > > RTEMS_TEST_CHECK([psxconcurrency01]) >>> > > RTEMS_TEST_CHECK([psxcond01]) >>> > > diff --git a/testsuites/psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01/init.c >>> b/testsuites/psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01/init.c >>> > > new file mode 100644 >>> > > index 0000000000..21b738627d >>> > > --- /dev/null >>> > > +++ b/testsuites/psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01/init.c >>> > > @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ >>> > > +/* >>> > > + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause >>> > > + * >>> > > + * Copyright (C) 2020 Utkarsh Rai >>> > > + * >>> > > + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or >>> without >>> > > + * modification, are permitted provided that the following >>> conditions >>> > > + * are met: >>> > > + * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright >>> > > + * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. >>> > > + * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above >>> copyright >>> > > + * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer >>> in the >>> > > + * documentation and/or other materials provided with the >>> distribution. >>> > > + * >>> > > + * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND >>> CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" >>> > > + * AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT >>> LIMITED TO, THE >>> > > + * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A >>> PARTICULAR PURPOSE >>> > > + * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR >>> CONTRIBUTORS BE >>> > > + * LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, >>> OR >>> > > + * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, >>> PROCUREMENT OF >>> > > + * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR >>> BUSINESS >>> > > + * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, >>> WHETHER IN >>> > > + * CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR >>> OTHERWISE) >>> > > + * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF >>> ADVISED OF THE >>> > > + * POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. >>> > > + */ >>> > > + >>> > > +#include <rtems.h> >>> > > +#include <rtems/test.h> >>> > > +#include <time.h> >>> > > +#include <tmacros.h> >>> > > + >>> > > +/*Forward declaration to avoid compiler warning*/ >>> > > +void clock_sleep(void); >>> > Please use a static function instead. Most of these forward >>> declarations >>> > are just lazy warning fixes and bad examples. >>> > > + >>> > > +rtems_task Init(rtems_task_argument ignored); >>> > > + >>> > > +const char rtems_test_name[] = "PSXCLOCKNANOSLEEP 01"; >>> > > + >>> > > +void clock_sleep(void) >>> > > +{ >>> > > + struct timespec delay_time; >>> > > + int status; >>> > > + >>> > > + delay_time.tv_sec = 0; >>> > > + delay_time.tv_nsec = 1; >>> > > + >>> > > + status=clock_nanosleep( CLOCK_MONOTONIC, 0, &delay_time, (struct >>> timespec* )NULL ); >>> > In C code this cast is superfluous, in C++ code using NULL is out >>> dated. >>> > > + rtems_test_assert( status == 0 ); >>> > > +} >>> > > + >>> > > +rtems_task Init(rtems_task_argument ignored) >>> > > +{ >>> > > + >>> > > + struct timespec init_time; >>> > > + struct timespec end_time; >>> > > + int status; >>> > > + >>> > > + TEST_BEGIN(); >>> > > + >>> > > + status = clock_gettime( CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &init_time ); >>> > > + rtems_test_assert( status == 0 ); >>> > > + >>> > > + clock_sleep(); >>> > > + >>> > > + status = clock_gettime( CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &end_time ); >>> > > + rtems_test_assert( status == 0 ); >>> > > + >>> > > + rtems_test_assert( (end_time.tv_sec-init_time.tv_sec) == 0 ); >>> > >>> > Is end_time.tv_sec - init_time.tv_sec == 0 under all circumstances? >>> > >>> > The test case code should be separated from the test suite boilerplate >>> code. >>> > >>> > > + rtems_test_assert( (end_time.tv_nsec-init_time.tv_nsec) >=1 ); >>> > We really should think about using a C code formatter. I think that I >>> > waste my time telling someone to put spaces between operators. >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > devel mailing list >>> > devel@rtems.org >>> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devel mailing list >>> devel@rtems.org >>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>> >>
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
