Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:38:26 -0800 | From | george anzinger <> | Subject | Re: [BUG - HRT patch] nanosleep returns 0 on failure |
| |
"Fleischer, Julie N" wrote: > > George - > In the latest 2.5.54-bk1 high-res-timers patches, it appears that > nanosleep() is returning 0 (success) and not setting errno when an rqtp > argument is sent that specifies a nsec value < 0 or >= 1000 million. In > this instance, the POSIX System Interfaces doc states that errno is supposed > to be set to EINVAL, and nanosleep should return -1.
Looks like I missed a line in the compatibility layer. I found it and it will be fixed in the next release.
If you don't mind, I will add your test code to my clock_nanosleep test code so this does not creep back in.
Thanks for the report.
-g > > In the 2.5.50 high-res-timers patches, behavior was as expected (i.e., > returned -1 and set errno=EINVAL). Unfortunately, I haven't looked at any > patches since then to know exactly which patch stopped behaving as expected. > A plain 2.5.54-bk1 kernel also behaves as expected (returns -1, sets > errno=EINVAL). > > The tests I am using to reproduce this issue are part of the POSIX Test > Suite at http://posixtest.sf.net under > posixtestsuite/conformance/interfaces/nanosleep. 5-1.c (sending -1 nsec), > 6-1.c (sending multiple nsec values < 0 and >= 1,000 million), and 10000-1.c > (sending other nsec values < 0 and >= 1,000 million) are failing. I've > included 5-1.c below. > > Additional information is below: > kernel used = 2.5.54-bk1 > HRT patches applied = > hrtimers-core-2.5.54-bk1-1.0.patch > hrtimers-hrposix-2.5.54-bk1-1.0.patch > hrtimers-i386-2.5.54-bk1-1.0.patch > hrtimers-posix-2.5.54-bk1-1.0.patch > hrtimers-support-2.5.52-1.0.patch > > Thanks. > - Julie Fleischer > > ---- > test 5-1.c below > (Output was: nanosleep() did not return -1 on failure) > > /* > * Copyright (c) 2002, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. > * Created by: julie.n.fleischer REMOVE-THIS AT intel DOT com > * This file is licensed under the GPL license. For the full content > * of this license, see the COPYING file at the top level of this > * source tree. > > * Test that nanosleep() returns -1 on failure. > * Simulate failure condition by sending -1 as the nsec to sleep for. > */ > #include <stdio.h> > #include <time.h> > > #define PTS_PASS 0 > #define PTS_FAIL 1 > #define PTS_UNRESOLVED 2 > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > { > struct timespec tssleepfor, tsstorage; > int sleepnsec = -1; > > tssleepfor.tv_sec=0; > tssleepfor.tv_nsec=sleepnsec; > if (nanosleep(&tssleepfor, &tsstorage) == -1) { > printf("Test PASSED\n"); > return PTS_PASS; > } else { > printf("nanosleep() did not return -1 on failure\n"); > return PTS_FAIL; > } > > printf("This code should not be executed.\n"); > return PTS_UNRESOLVED; > } > > **These views are not necessarily those of my employer.** > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |