From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:35:57 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2] syscalls/clock_gettime: Ported clock_gettime03.c to new API In-Reply-To: <20190729121719.GA25075@rei.lan> References: <20190729120222.4717-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20190729121719.GA25075@rei.lan> Message-ID: <20190729123557.GA9131@dell5510> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Cyril, > Hi! > > NOTE: test is still a mess, even after porting it. > > Cleaning it up would probably be its own patch as the best > > solution would be to rewrite it from scratch. > The patch looks good, acked. > There are couple of things that could be done to make the code cleaner. > For instance we should make use of the .restore_wallclock flag in the > test structure. But let's do that in a subsequent patches. +1 > Also I'm not 100% sure that this test belongs under the clock_gettime/ > directory, we do call clock_gettime() in the main test function but the > whole test is about inserting leap second. Maybe we should keep the test > under the clock_gettime directory and rename it to leapsec01.c or > something like this, but I'm not 100% sure about this. +1 Before 0051eab23 it was called leapsec_timer.c. I also consider leapsec01.c as more descriptive. Anyone else against renaming it? Kind regards, Petr