also need to put
Into the patch description, maybe that can happen as it is pushed ?
On 13 October 2016 at 17:46, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org>
> Since this is a bug fix, please open a Bug for it so that this can be
> tracked as a defect closure.
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Brian Brooks <brian.bro...@linaro.org>
> > A timer pool's tick starts at t0 (zero). Once the first period has
> > the timer pool is scanned for any timers that have expired since t0 + 1.
> > Current code does an atomic fetch increment on the tick, but uses the
> > previous tick during timer expiration processing. What is needed is the
> > previous tick + 1.
> > The observable effect without this patch is that timers are expired one
> > tick
> > period (timer resolution) later than they should be.
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Brooks <brian.bro...@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > platform/linux-generic/odp_timer.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > diff --git a/platform/linux-generic/odp_timer.c
> > b/platform/linux-generic/odp_timer.c
> > index becea9d..b26ac6b 100644
> > --- a/platform/linux-generic/odp_timer.c
> > +++ b/platform/linux-generic/odp_timer.c
> > @@ -691,7 +691,7 @@ static void timer_notify(odp_timer_pool *tp)
> > prev_tick = odp_atomic_fetch_inc_u64(&tp->cur_tick);
> > /* Scan timer array, looking for timers to expire */
> > - (void)odp_timer_pool_expire(tp, prev_tick);
> > + (void)odp_timer_pool_expire(tp, prev_tick + 1);
> > /* Else skip scan of timers. cur_tick was updated and next itimer
> > * invocation will process older expiration ticks as well */
> > --
> > 2.7.4
Program Manager - Linaro Networking Group
Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> *│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs
"Work should be fun and collaborative, the rest follows"