[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: patch to fix set_itimer() behaviour in boundary cases
    On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 15:51 -0800, George Anzinger wrote:
    > Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > > 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 <> 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...
    > >
    > That would work for sleep (but glibc uses nanosleep for that) but an itimer
    > delivers a signal. Rather hard to trap that in glibc.
    This one I meant to fix in the kernel fwiw; we can put that loop inside
    the kernel easily I'm sure

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.050 / U:150.936 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site