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: 9b9d263a8c8d97db779d6ae7d0c692617caa1047
 **/
----------------/github------------------------

----------------checkpatch.pl------------------------
WARNING: Duplicate signature
#16: 
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dmitry.ereminsoleni...@linaro.org>

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.
total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 11 lines checked


to_send-p-001.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
----------------/checkpatch.pl------------------------

Reply via email to