lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: patch to fix set_itimer() behaviour in boundary cases
From
Date
On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 11:55 -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:58:45AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > I don't see a valid reason to restrict/reject input that is accepted
> > now and dealt with reasonably because some standard says so (if you
> > design a new api, following the standard is nice of course). I don't
> > see "doesn't reject a condition that can reasonable be dealt with"
> > as a good reason to go double ABI at all.
>
> we could printk for now and if nobody reports this to lkml (as they
> do/did with oldish tcpdump/libpcap a while ago) we could -EINVAL
>

but why????
if someone wants the stuff rejected in a posix confirm way, he can do
these tests easily in the syscall wrapper he needs anyway for this
function.


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans