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_time.tv_sec) == 0 ); >> >> Is end_time.tv_sec - init_time.tv_sec == 0 under all circumstances? >> > > My idea was to check for a 1ns delay with a reasonable amount of overhead, > hence I checked for end_time.tv_sec - init_time.tv_sec == 0. > > Exists there a value of init_time for which end_time.tv_sec != > init_time.tv_sec and still 1ns elapsed? > Sorry, maybe I am confused in my concept, kidly help me out. I want to produce a 1ns delay, so I make a call to clock_nanosleep with flag value as 0 (to sleep for specified time) and the delay being 1ns. I recorded the time before the sleep call and after the sleep call. Now, I want to check if the delay produced was actually 1ns with a reasonable overhead, my assumption for an unreasonable overhead was that if I specify a delay of 1ns and I get a delay in seconds, it would be an error.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel