On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Garrett Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Garrett Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Mitani <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I noticed that "stime01" test let system-clock be faster than right time.
>>>
>>> "stime01.c" is going to set system-clock by calling "stime()" function
>>> with "new_time" variable.
>>> It gets "curr_time" by "time()" function, and sets "curr_time + 10sec"
>>> in "new_time".
>>> But after the test, It doesn't restore system-clock.
>>>
>>> Therefore, system-clock is set faster than right time about 10 seconds
>>> after "stime01" test.
>>> If this test is repeated many times, the system-clock advances for the
>>> number of test times.
>>> And, if system is rebooted, hardware-clock will be wrong.
>>>
>>> How about following patch?
>>
>> The patch looks good, but I assume (and hope) that cleanup gets
>> executed every time before the program exits?
>
> Err... two other problems with the above code now that I look at it a
> bit closer...
>
> 1. tst_brkm in cleanup shouldn't have cleanup as the second arg; I'm
> not sure whether or not tst_brkm handles infinite recursion properly;
> NULL should be the second arg (if you don't want to exit) or tst_exit
> (if you do want to exit).
> 2. What happens if you try to restore the time and it failed to get
> the original time (shouldn't happen, but it can happen if the RTC
> driver is busted, like it was on the cavium image that I was using at
> my previous job)?
Could you please submit a modified patch?
Thanks!
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLARIS 10 is the OS for Data Centers - provides features such as DTrace,
Predictive Self Healing and Award Winning ZFS. Get Solaris 10 NOW
http://p.sf.net/sfu/solaris-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
