Re: Running POSIX Timers tests against HRT implementation

[george anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

"Fleischer, Julie N" wrote:
> 
> > george anzinger wrote:
> > Now, as to this particular issue, the 1003.1b-1993 standard
> > in paragraph 14.2.1.2 says "The effect of setting a clock
> > via clock_settime() on armed per process timers associated
> > with that clock is implementation defined."
> 
> I see.  Since I'm writing tests towards the 1003.1-2001 standards, I'll need
> to be careful where there's a difference between that one and 1003.1b-1993,
> as is the case with this issue.  (If you'd still appreciate knowing the
> deltas, I can still let you know when there is a difference in the
> 1003.1-2001 standard and the current implementation.)
> 
> In the 1003.1-2001 standards, it actually adds the qualifier that the line
> you quoted applies to non-CLOCK_REALTIME clocks.  If I'm interpreting that
> standard correctly, CLOCK_REALTIME clocks should require that absolute
> timers use the latest value of the clock and not behave relatively.

Well darn.  I was unaware of this change.  I will see what
can be done to change the code....

-g
> 
> I'll make sure that I check the 1003.1b-1993 standards as well, though, when
> reporting future issues.
> 
> - Julie
> 

-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers: 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml