On 1/8/2022 6:20 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 01/08/2022 10:16, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 1/8/2022 5:22 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> A relative CLOCK_REALTIME time out shall not be affected by CLOCK_REALTIME >>> changes through clock_settime(). Since our CLOCK_REALTIME is basically just >>> CLOCK_MONOTONIC plus an offset, we can simply use the CLOCK_MONOTONIC >>> watchdog >>> for relative CLOCK_REALTIME time outs. >> Thank for this. I can confirm it works with the modified test code I >> attached to >> the ticket. I am ts-validation-no-clock-0.exe now failing on >> xilinx_zynq_a9_qemu >> but I am not sure? > > I have to adjust the ts-validation-no-clock-0.exe if we want to fix the issue > like this. > >> >> There is one issue my test changes have exposed and that is the ticks a >> thread >> sleeps for is 1 more than the requested number. > > I think this is the expected behaviour. You should sleep at least the > requested > amount of time.
I am using 500msec so I would expect the result to be exact? If it was 501msec then I would agree. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
