lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [16]   [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 Sun, 2005-01-16 at 00:58 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
    > On Sad, 2005-01-15 at 09:30, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > Matthias Lang <matthias@corelatus.se> wrote:
    > > These are things we probably cannot change now. All three are arguably
    > > sensible behaviour and do satisfy the principle of least surprise. So
    > > there may be apps out there which will break if we "fix" these things.
    > >
    > > If the kernel version was 2.7.0 then well maybe...
    >
    > These are things we should fix. They are bugs. Since there is no 2.7
    > plan pick a date to fix it. We should certainly error the overflow case
    > *now* because the behaviour is undefined/broken. The other cases I'm not
    > clear about. setitimer() is a library interface and it can do the basic
    > checking and error if it wants to be strictly posixly compliant.

    why error?
    I'm pretty sure we can make a loop in the setitimer code that detects
    we're at the end of jiffies but haven't upsurped the entire interval the
    user requested yet, so that the code should just do another round of
    sleeping...


    -
    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    [W:0.019 / U:33.680 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site