Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

eout values as >>> well as >>> for the effect on timeout delay when REALTIME clock is modified(no >>> effect). >>> The timing tests are the similar to that for the REALTIME >>> option(yielding and >>> blocking). >>> >>> U

Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

/psxclocknanosleep01/.. tests for valid timeout values as >> well as >> for the effect on timeout delay when REALTIME clock is modified(no >> effect). >> The timing tests are the similar to that for the REALTIME option(yielding >> and >> blocking). >> >

Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

ests for valid timeout values as > well as > >> for the effect on timeout delay when REALTIME clock is modified(no > effect). > >> The timing tests are the similar to that for the REALTIME > option(yielding and > >> blocking). > >> > >> Utkarsh R

Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

on(yielding and >> blocking). >> >> Utkarsh Rai (1): >> Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option >> >> .../psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01.yml | 19 +++ >> spec/build/testsuites/psxtmtests/grp.yml | 4 + >> .../p

Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

is modified(no effect). > The timing tests are the similar to that for the REALTIME option(yielding > and > blocking). > > Utkarsh Rai (1): > Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option > > .../psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01.yml | 19 +++ > spec/buil

[PATCH v4 0/1] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

(yielding and blocking). Utkarsh Rai (1): Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option .../psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01.yml | 19 +++ spec/build/testsuites/psxtmtests/grp.yml | 4 + .../psxtmtests/psxtmclocknanosleep04.yml | 19 +++ .../psxtmtests

[PATCH v4 1/1] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

--- .../psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01.yml | 19 +++ spec/build/testsuites/psxtmtests/grp.yml | 4 + .../psxtmtests/psxtmclocknanosleep04.yml | 19 +++ .../psxtmtests/psxtmclocknanosleep05.yml | 19 +++ .../psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01/init.c | 145

Re: [PATCH v4] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 9:58 PM Gedare Bloom wrote: > Hi Utkarsh, > > I was starting to review this, but then I got a little bit confused by > what you have done. > > I think you may have gone down the wrong path to do this work. It > looks like you copied from libtests/ttest01 to construct this

Re: [PATCH v4] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

Hi Utkarsh, I was starting to review this, but then I got a little bit confused by what you have done. I think you may have gone down the wrong path to do this work. It looks like you copied from libtests/ttest01 to construct this test. That is actually a test for the testing infrastructure itsel

Re: [PATCH v4] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

Hello, Can someone please review this. I would like to work on the suggested changes over the weekend. On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 8:45 PM Utkarsh Rai wrote: > From: Utkarsh > > Closes #3890 > > Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Rai > --- > spec/build/testsuites/psxtests/grp.yml| 2 + > .../psxtes

[PATCH v4] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

From: Utkarsh Closes #3890 Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Rai --- spec/build/testsuites/psxtests/grp.yml| 2 + .../psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01.yml | 20 +++ .../psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01/init.c | 94 ++ .../psxclocknanosleep01.doc | 13 ++

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: >> > >> >

Test for clock_nanosleep

I have written the following patch based on the new test framework. Although the test runs successfully, I am not sure I have utilized the RTEMS_LINKER_ROSET/ ROSET_DECLARE properly to link test objects. ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists

[PATCH v3] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option

>This test is based on the new test framework and has been tested for the >sparc/erc32 bsp. --- testsuites/psxtests/Makefile.am | 10 ++ testsuites/psxtests/configure.ac | 1 + .../psxtests/psxclocknanosleep01/init.c | 102 +++ .../psxclocknanosleep

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] Test for clock_nanosleep() with CLOCK_MONOTONIC option.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:33 AM 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 test

[PATCH] 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

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

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:05 AM 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/i

[PATCH] 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

Re: Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC (# 3890)

Thank you for the clarification, I will proceed accordingly. On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:36 PM Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:56 AM Utkarsh Rai > wrote: > >> Thank you, under psxtests/psxhdrs/time we have a test for clock_nanosleep >> for CLOCK_R

Re: Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC (# 3890)

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:56 AM Utkarsh Rai wrote: > Thank you, under psxtests/psxhdrs/time we have a test for clock_nanosleep > for CLOCK_REALTIME, would it be a good idea to add test for CLOCK_MONOTONIC > under the same test, or should I add a different test using RTEMS Test &g

Re: Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC (# 3890)

Thank you, under psxtests/psxhdrs/time we have a test for clock_nanosleep for CLOCK_REALTIME, would it be a good idea to add test for CLOCK_MONOTONIC under the same test, or should I add a different test using RTEMS Test framework? On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:43 PM Sebastian Huber < sebastian

Re: Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC (# 3890)

On 09/04/2020 15:04, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 7:43 AM Sebastian Huber > wrote: On 09/04/2020 14:40, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 7:28 AM Utkarsh Rai mailto:utkarsh.ra...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi, I

Re: Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC (# 3890)

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 7:43 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 09/04/2020 14:40, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 7:28 AM Utkarsh Rai wrote: > >> Hi, >> I am willing to add tests for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC. What >> is the standard way of

Re: Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC (# 3890)

On 09/04/2020 14:40, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 7:28 AM Utkarsh Rai > wrote: Hi, I am willing to add tests for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC. What is the standard way of adding test for an already present  API but with differ

Re: Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC (# 3890)

Hello Utkarsh Rai, On 09/04/2020 14:28, Utkarsh Rai wrote: I am willing to add tests for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC. What is the standard way of adding test for an already present API but with different configuration? For eg. should I add 'psxtmclocknanosleep04/ 05/ 06' in the testsu

Re: Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC (# 3890)

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 7:28 AM Utkarsh Rai wrote: > Hi, > I am willing to add tests for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC. What > is the standard way of adding test for an already present API but with > different configuration? For eg. should I add 'psxtmclocknanosleep04/ 05/ > 06' in the test

Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC (# 3890)

Hi, I am willing to add tests for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC. What is the standard way of adding test for an already present API but with different configuration? For eg. should I add 'psxtmclocknanosleep04/ 05/ 06' in the testsuite? ___ devel