timer_main test was regularly failing due to worker code receiving timeout events for cancelled timers. I'm fixing worker code to handle these events correctly, however this might signify a loophole in API definition or in linux-generic implementation. Shoud application be able to copy with timers that are cancelled after expiration (but before event reception)? Should implementation mark such timers as non-fresh? Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org Fixes: https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3517
----------------github------------------------ /** Email created from pull request 479 (lumag:timer-fix) ** https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/479 ** Patch: https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/479.patch ** Base sha: 41b3fa2cd994a7ef68290a07dcde5564e4640847 ** Merge commit sha: cc3f055117284a00cf82d1ad3d94ae6044701f36 **/ ----------------/github------------------------ ----------------checkpatch.pl------------------------ WARNING: 'Shoud' may be misspelled - perhaps 'Should'? #10: definition or in linux-generic implementation. Shoud application be able total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 48 lines checked to_send-p-000.patch has style problems, please review. If any of these errors are false positives, please report them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS. ----------------/checkpatch.pl------------------------
