Hi Arnd, On 5/5/20 4:07 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:03 PM Vincenzo Frascino > <vincenzo.frascino@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 5/5/20 3:50 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:34 PM Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Not sure if you are aware of the recent bug report about clock_gettime64() >>> returning invalid times on some arm32 kernels: >>> https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux/issues/3579 >>> >> >> No, I was not aware of the problem. There has been no mention on the arm list >> (unless I missed it). I can try to have a look at it as soon as I get some time. > > Right, it was on only on the musl list, and I had pinged you on IRC, but you > must have been offline. > Sorry about that, I did not get your message :( The only thing I can think it is that if it was last to last week, I was on holiday... Anyway thanks for pointing this out. >>> Regardless of when that gets fixed or by whom, I wonder if kselftest should >>> also check for consistency, i.e. call both the vdso and the syscall version of >>> clock_gettime() and clock_gettime64() and check that the results are always >>> in sequence. >>> >> >> The test #4 partially does that: it calls syscall-vdso-syscall and verifies that >> the sequencing is correct. I reused the x86 code for that. I could extend it to >> clock_gettime64() and make sure it builds on all the platforms. > > Sounds good to me. > > Arnd > -- Regards, Vincenzo
