On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 08:27:17AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: >> I'm not sure if we want to explicitly document the conditions under which >> gettimeofday() (or clock_gettime()) are implemented in userland vs syscalls >> because that is guaranteed to get stale over time. How about stating that > Of course, we don't. There is no guarantee that the set of conditions > is stable even on the stable branch. > >> these functions are implemented as syscalls only if the AT_TIMEKEEP value >> reported by "procstat -x" is NULL. > Mere presence of AT_TIMEKEEP does not imply the use of the fast path. > E.g. the fast path can be disabled dynamically, or timecounter could be > changed, or libc might be of the wrong version. My imagination stops > there. > > IMO the point of this discussion is to note that test suite tests useless
useless -> inapplicable > things. things. -> things [for FreeBSD]. > If somebody run the test suite for libc, she would immediately note > another failing test for the stack protector, which is similar to the > gettimeofday nonsense. Perhaps, but that's assuming that NetBSD implemented gettimeofday in userland, which is doesn't. I agree that this is less applicable for FreeBSD than NetBSD. Please keep in mind that contrib/netbsd-tests came from NetBSD, not FreeBSD. Peter Holm and I tried our best to vet out the issues with the test suite before integrating it in, but there might be issues due to implementation discrepancies between FreeBSD and NetBSD. Thanks, -NGie _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
