RE: SI-ia64: LSB.os exec tests
At 2002/7/22 10:19-0700 Wichmann, Mats D writes:
> >
> > I think that the test is wrong, and will fail on any Linux machine
> > with HZ != 100. With a higher click we have more play in the
> > numbers. The itimer spec is a little vague on the exact semantics,
> > though.
>
> Thanks for the pointer. What I read in the sus under
> setitimer/getitimer suggests that if the implementation
> can't precisely represent, e.g. 10,000 microseconds, it
> can round it up. With a 100 Hz clock, it works out that
> it can precisely represent it, but not with a 1024 hz
> clock like the Itanium uses. Thus I think I agree the
> test questionable, it should be allowing for up to a
> one-tick overage.
>
> In my error cases, I'm over by 736, 496 and 256 microseconds.
> One tick at 1024/sec is 977 microseconds, so I guess I
> think these tests pass :-)
I agree, this looks like a test suite bug to me.
Mats, could you submit a bug report about this?
Thanks,
Chris
--
cyeoh@au.ibm.com
IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-test-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
Reply to: