On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:52:53PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
OK! Here is the full implementation of the idea against Linux
timekeeper, ntp, and PPS. It appears that ntp and PPS were relying on
the timekeeper seqlock too. And guess what, after booting my laptop with
this kernel there
On 09/12/2013 06:29 PM, Christian Babeux wrote:
Hi lttng-testers,
The current lttng-tools testsuite has some limitations as recently
pointed out on this OpenEmbedded thread [1].
The testsuite cannot be runned against an installed codebase of
lttng-tools because the tests assume that the
* Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com) wrote:
[...]
@@ -1362,29 +1398,31 @@ static inline void old_vsyscall_fixup(struct
timekeeper *tk)
static void update_wall_time(void)
{
[...]
- /*
- * Update the real timekeeper.
- *
- * We could avoid this memcpy by
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra (pet...@infradead.org) wrote:
[...]
Yep, that's good. I suppose if there's multiple use sites we can jump
through another few hoops to get rid of the specific struct foo
assumptions by storing sizeof() whatever we do use and
On 09/13/2013 10:05 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
On 13/09/13 09:13 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra (pet...@infradead.org) wrote:
[...]
Yep, that's good. I suppose if there's multiple use sites we can jump
through another few hoops to
On 13/09/13 09:13 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra (pet...@infradead.org) wrote:
[...]
Yep, that's good. I suppose if there's multiple use sites we can jump
through another few hoops to get rid of the specific struct foo
assumptions by
* John Stultz (john.stu...@linaro.org) wrote:
On 09/13/2013 10:05 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
On 13/09/13 09:13 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra (pet...@infradead.org) wrote:
[...]
Yep, that's good. I suppose if there's multiple
On 09/13/2013 11:20 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
This looks to me like interesting optimisation work that should be
considered after the following question is answered: does the added
update-side cost actually matter that much ?
Yea, fair enough. We can measure the cost first.
thanks
-john
On 09/13/2013 08:30 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
By the way, if there are some standard test-bench for timekeeping, I'd
be very interested to hear about them.
I've got a git repo of tests that I use for basic sanity checks here:
https://github.com/johnstultz-work/timetests.git
thanks
-john
Of course, that would break the `make check` target as for in-development
testing
the binaries would no longer be found. Is there any reason a simple
adjustment of the PATH variable would not be enough ?
One of the issue I see with overriding the PATH _only_ in the make
check target is that
On 09/13/2013 03:56 PM, Christian Babeux wrote:
Of course, that would break the `make check` target as for in-development
testing
the binaries would no longer be found. Is there any reason a simple
adjustment of the PATH variable would not be enough ?
One of the issue I see with overriding
Anonymous enum can't be referenced from C++. to fix this issue, declare enum
bt_iter_pos_type and use this type in struct bt_iter_pos.
Signed-off-by: Francis Giraldeau francis.girald...@gmail.com
---
include/babeltrace/iterator.h | 16 +---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7
Merged thanks!
David
Stefan Seefeld:
Enable execution of tests via `make installcheck`, i.e. against a fully
installed
LTTng.
The patch simply adds the same rule to the installcheck target that is used
for check.
Testing with an OpenEmbedded build shows the unit_tests suite to work
merged, thanks!
* Francis Giraldeau (francis.girald...@gmail.com) wrote:
Anonymous enum can't be referenced from C++. to fix this issue, declare enum
bt_iter_pos_type and use this type in struct bt_iter_pos.
Signed-off-by: Francis Giraldeau francis.girald...@gmail.com
---
* John Stultz (john.stu...@linaro.org) wrote:
On 09/13/2013 08:30 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
By the way, if there are some standard test-bench for timekeeping, I'd
be very interested to hear about them.
I've got a git repo of tests that I use for basic sanity checks here:
15 matches
Mail list logo