----- "Garrett Cooper" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Caspar Zhang <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Garrett, I tested my patch yesterday but the result
> > is not so good. After 1000 times running, the fix:
> >
> > + /* do a rounding */
> > + real_sec = (int)(0.5 + (tv_end.tv_sec -
> tv_start.tv_sec +
> > + 1e-9 * (tv_end.tv_nsec -
> tv_start.tv_nsec)));
> > + if (real_sec == total_sec)
> >
> > got failed for once. so I set the allowed error to 20%(see the
> > attached patch). Then re-ran it for over 5000 times, without
> > a failure.
Hi, seems that this changing not ACKed or committed, re-attach
the patch .
Thanks,
Caspar
> >
> > Then the nsec part, 10% allowed error seems not enough,
> > the test failed for twice among 1000 times. So I set the
> > range to 20%, too.
>
> Fair enough... change committed.
Hi,
Tests can be easily failing when using real_sec == total_sec.
Changed to the similar way as in nsec part does, allow 20%
error.
Signed-off-by: Caspar Zhang <[email protected]>
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pselect/pselect01.c 2010-07-21
18:08:25.139600055 +0800
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pselect/pselect01.c 2010-07-22
16:17:06.552474774 +0800
@@ -66,7 +66,8 @@
int retval;
struct timespec tv, tv_start, tv_end;
long real_nsec, total_nsec;
- int real_sec, total_sec;
+ double real_sec;
+ int total_sec;
setup();
@@ -107,13 +108,13 @@
NULL);
clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &tv_end);
- /* do a rounding */
- real_sec = (int)(0.5 + (tv_end.tv_sec - tv_start.tv_sec +
- 1e-9 * (tv_end.tv_nsec - tv_start.tv_nsec)));
- if (real_sec == total_sec)
+ real_sec = (tv_end.tv_sec - tv_start.tv_sec +
+ 1e-9 * (tv_end.tv_nsec - tv_start.tv_nsec));
+ /* allow about 20% error */
+ if (abs(real_sec - total_sec) < 0.2 * total_sec)
tst_resm(TPASS, "Sleep time was correct");
else
- tst_resm(TFAIL, "Sleep time was incorrect:%d != %d",
+ tst_resm(TFAIL, "Sleep time was incorrect:%d != %lf",
total_sec, real_sec);
}
--
Quality Assurance Associate (Kernel) in
Red Hat Inc. (Beijing R&D Branch)
TEL: +86-10-62608150
Web: http://www.redhat.com/
Hi,
Tests can be easily failing when using real_sec == total_sec.
Changed to the similar way as in nsec part does, allow 20%
error.
Signed-off-by: Caspar Zhang <[email protected]>
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pselect/pselect01.c 2010-07-21 18:08:25.139600055 +0800
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/pselect/pselect01.c 2010-07-22 16:17:06.552474774 +0800
@@ -66,7 +66,8 @@
int retval;
struct timespec tv, tv_start, tv_end;
long real_nsec, total_nsec;
- int real_sec, total_sec;
+ double real_sec;
+ int total_sec;
setup();
@@ -107,13 +108,13 @@
NULL);
clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &tv_end);
- /* do a rounding */
- real_sec = (int)(0.5 + (tv_end.tv_sec - tv_start.tv_sec +
- 1e-9 * (tv_end.tv_nsec - tv_start.tv_nsec)));
- if (real_sec == total_sec)
+ real_sec = (tv_end.tv_sec - tv_start.tv_sec +
+ 1e-9 * (tv_end.tv_nsec - tv_start.tv_nsec));
+ /* allow about 20% error */
+ if (abs(real_sec - total_sec) < 0.2 * total_sec)
tst_resm(TPASS, "Sleep time was correct");
else
- tst_resm(TFAIL, "Sleep time was incorrect:%d != %d",
+ tst_resm(TFAIL, "Sleep time was incorrect:%d != %lf",
total_sec, real_sec);
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
