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: d5419e8857b2bc61d3be17fe53f171550fee426b ** Merge commit sha: 21113b211b455e70fa0a51d80db89991bdf5bc2c **/ ----------------/github------------------------ ----------------checkpatch.pl------------------------ total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 48 lines checked to_send-p-000.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission. 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------------------------
