Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:27:23 +0100 | From | "Michael Kerrisk" <> | Subject | Re: Tesing of / bugs in new timerfd API |
| |
Hi Davide,
On 12/16/07, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > You snipped my example that demonstrated the problem. Both of the > > following runs create a timer that expires 10 seconds from "now", but > > observe the difference in the value returned by timerfd_gettime(): > > > > $ ./timerfd_test 10 # does not use TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME > > Initial setting for settime: value=10.000, interval=0.000 > > ./timerfd_test> g > > (elapsed time= 1) > > Current value: value=346.448, interval=0.000 > > > > $ ./timerfd_test -a 10 # uses TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME > > Initial setting for settime: value=1197630855.254, interval=0.000 > > ./timerfd_test> g > > (elapsed time= 1) > > Current value: value=1197630855.254, interval=0.000 > > > > Either there's an inconsistency here depending on the use of > > TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME, or there is a bug in my understanding or my test > program > > (but so far I haven't spotted that bug ;-).). > > Can you try the two patches below? I tried them on my 32 bit box (one of > the rare beasts still lingering around here) and it seems to be working > fine (those go on top of the previous ones).
Against 2.6.24-rc5, I applied first your earlier patches ("v3") and then the newest patch. My tests confirm that:
> This fixed the 32 bit tick-count truncation, and makes the time returned > to be the remaining time till the next expiration.
Are you going to resubmit a new patch set that includes these latest changes?
Michael
| |