[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190117155859.GE18351@osiris>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 16:58:59 +0100
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stefan Liebler <stli@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] timer fix
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:51:02AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > - if (timr->it_requeue_pending == info->si_sys_private) {
> > > + if (timr->it_interval && timr->it_requeue_pending == info->si_sys_private) {
> > > timr->kclock->timer_rearm(timr);
> >
> > FWIW, with this patch the vanilla glibc 2.28 self tests
> > rt/tst-cputimer1, rt/tst-cputimer2, and rt/tst-cputimer3
> > start to fail on s390:
...
> > I haven't looked any further into this, just reporting.. otherwise the
> > test systems seem to be healthy.
>
> Could you please check whether the top commit in tip:timers/urgent fixes
> it:
> 93ad0fc088c5: posix-cpu-timers: Unbreak timer rearming
Yes, the test cases don't fail anymore. Thanks!
A general question: since I reported this already last year, was the
bug report not usable? I understand that x-mas holidays were in
between, just wondering if new "glibc test case" fails are worth to be
reported like I did.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists