On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 12:20:31PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 11:47 PM Thomas Weißschuh (Schneider Electric) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The test relies on the numeric values of the clockids. > > As not all clocks are meant to be tested, this requires skipping some > > clocks unconditionally, cluttering the result. > > My only nit here is that there are some clocks the previous code > explicitly skips (_CPUTIME_IDs), and others that are skipped as they > just don't support nanosleep (the _RAW and _COARSE ids) and return the > proper error. > > It might be helpful to clarify in the commit message this distinction > so its clear this commit isn't just forgetting the _RAW and _COARSE > ids.
I'll update the commit message to mention this. > > Use an equivalent, explicit list instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh (Schneider Electric) > > <[email protected]> > > Otherwise, > Acked-by: John Stultz <[email protected]> Thanks!
