Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Aug 2013 21:11:17 +0800 | From | Dong Zhu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] posix_cpu_timers: fix timer never expires when executes clock_nanosleep |
| |
Hi Stanislaw,
Thansk for your info.
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 01:30:50PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > Hi Dong Zhu > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 06:10:19PM +0800, Dong Zhu wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c > > index c7f31aa..cc03290 100644 > > --- a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c > > +++ b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c > > @@ -1413,9 +1413,9 @@ static int posix_cpu_nsleep(const clockid_t which_clock, int flags, > > /* > > * Diagnose required errors first. > > */ > > - if (CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(which_clock) && > > - (CPUCLOCK_PID(which_clock) == 0 || > > - CPUCLOCK_PID(which_clock) == current->pid)) > > + if (CPUCLOCK_PID(which_clock) == current->pid || > > + (CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(which_clock) && > > + CPUCLOCK_PID(which_clock) == 0)) > > return -EINVAL; > > Nope, this is wrong. We have to allow own pid process clock, because it > can be used correctly on multi-threaded processes. Own tid thread clock
Yes, you are right, I really neglected this point.
> has no sense and we correctly return -EINVAL in such case.
> > We could possibly add check for own pid together with check if process > consist of one thread, but that is too complicated IMHO especially > taking into account that threads on the process can be destroyed and > created dynamically. >
Agree, really so complicated.
-- Best Regards, Dong Zhu
| |