Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

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 She

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

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 wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:11 AM Gedare Bloom wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:56 PM Sebastian Huber >> wrote: >> > >> >

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 8:18 PM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 23/04/2020 19:15, Utkarsh Rai wrote: > > > I encountered linkage error while using the new test framework, in > > particular > > undefined reference to `_Stack_Space_size' > > undefined reference to

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On 23/04/2020 19:15, Utkarsh Rai wrote: I encountered linkage error while  using the new test framework, in particular undefined reference to `_Stack_Space_size' undefined reference to `_Thread_Initial_thread_count'. I did not realize that we needed a runner for using the new test framework (A

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On 22/04/2020 17:53, Utkarsh Rai wrote: Rationale for a new test- Although most of the test cases for this test have been taken from clockrealtime, adding it to the current test with CLOCK_MONOTONIC may break the existing cases. This test has a new case which tests for no change of delay w

[PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

Rationale for a new test- >Although most of the test cases for this test have been taken from >clockrealtime, adding it to the current test with CLOCK_MONOTONIC may break the existing cases. >This test has a new case which tests for no change of delay with monotonic >clock when the realtime clo

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:11 AM Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:56 PM Sebastian Huber > 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 >

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

Oh, I missed that, basically the difference between the second would amount to 59 and hence my assumption would be wrong Thank you for the clarification, I will remember to consider the cases. On Wed 15 Apr, 2020, 7:37 PM Gedare Bloom, wrote: > I appreciate what Sebastian is doing, but I'll be a

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:56 PM Sebastian Huber 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 pe

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

I appreciate what Sebastian is doing, but I'll be a bit more explicit. You should understand what resources/APIs already exist that may help you, such as: https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/c-user/timespec_helpers.html#timespec-helpers What happens when the time is 11:59:59.9 (HH:MM:

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On 15/04/2020 15:55, Utkarsh Rai wrote: Yes sir. Ok, good, then you should do this. Maybe someone else solved this problem already. On Wed 15 Apr, 2020, 7:21 PM Sebastian Huber, > wrote: On 15/04/2020 15:00, Utkarsh Rai wrote: > Okay, so

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

Yes sir. On Wed 15 Apr, 2020, 7:21 PM Sebastian Huber, < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 15/04/2020 15:00, Utkarsh Rai wrote: > > > Okay, so from what I could gather the time between the two gettime > > calls can exceed 1 sec if it is preempted by another process in > > between. I

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On 15/04/2020 15:00, Utkarsh Rai wrote: Okay, so from what I could gather the time between the two gettime calls can exceed 1 sec if it is preempted by another process in between. Is my line of thought correct? There is no other process. What you want to know is if the difference between two s

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

Okay, so from what I could gather the time between the two gettime calls can exceed 1 sec if it is preempted by another process in between. Is my line of thought correct? On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:01 PM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > On 15/04/2020 14:29, Utkarsh

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On 15/04/2020 14:29, Utkarsh Rai wrote: On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 5:35 PM Sebastian Huber > wrote: On 15/04/2020 14:02, Utkarsh Rai wrote: > +  status = clock_gettime( CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &end_time ); > +  rtems_test_assert( status ==

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 5:35 PM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 15/04/2020 14:02, Utkarsh Rai wrote: > > > + status = clock_gettime( CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &end_time ); >> > + rtems_test_assert( status == 0 ); >> > + >> > + rtems_test_assert( (end_time.tv_sec-init_ti

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On 15/04/2020 14:02, Utkarsh Rai wrote: > +  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

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:26 AM 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.

Re: [PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

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. On 14/04/2020 19:17, Utkarsh Rai wrote: This test checks for a simple 1 ns delay with clock_nanosl

[PATCH v2] Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

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