scratch/lwip
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fix bug #52748: the bug in timeouts.c by reimplementing timer logic to use absolute instead of relative timeout values

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Dirk Ziegelmeier
2018-01-05 11:42:14 +01:00
parent da2478b761
commit dd3861720f
2 changed files with 17 additions and 50 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
test/unit/core/test_timers.c
View File

@@ -65,9 +65,9 @@ END_TEST
START_TEST(test_timers)
{
LWIP_UNUSED_ARG(_i);
struct sys_timeo** list_head = lwip_sys_timers_get_next_timout();
/* struct sys_timeo** list_head = lwip_sys_timers_get_next_timout(); */
LWIP_UNUSED_ARG(_i);
/* check without u32_t wraparound */
@@ -81,11 +81,9 @@ START_TEST(test_timers)
fail_unless(sys_timeouts_sleeptime() == 5);
/* linked list correctly sorted? */
/*
fail_unless((*list_head)->time == (u32_t)(lwip_sys_now + 5));
fail_unless((*list_head)->next->time == (u32_t)(lwip_sys_now + 10));
fail_unless((*list_head)->next->next->time == (u32_t)(lwip_sys_now + 20));
*/
/* check timers expire in correct order */
memset(&fired, 0, sizeof(fired));
@@ -130,11 +128,9 @@ START_TEST(test_timers)
fail_unless(sys_timeouts_sleeptime() == 5);
/* linked list correctly sorted? */
/*
fail_unless((*list_head)->time == (u32_t)(lwip_sys_now + 5));
fail_unless((*list_head)->next->time == (u32_t)(lwip_sys_now + 10));
fail_unless((*list_head)->next->next->time == (u32_t)(lwip_sys_now + 20));
*/
/* check timers expire in correct order */
memset(&fired, 0, sizeof(fired));
@@ -174,7 +170,7 @@ Suite *
timers_suite(void)
{
testfunc tests[] = {
/* TESTFUNC(test_bug52748), */
TESTFUNC(test_bug52748),
TESTFUNC(test_timers)
};
testfunc tests_unused[] = {