lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [tiny patch] Timeout overflow in select()

On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Stephane Belmon wrote:

> >One more comment on your patch: Generally speaking, this style of checking
> >overflows _after_ they happen makes me a little nervous. It works in many
> >cases, like what you do: "a+b". If you're doing "a+b+c", testing things
> >like the sign of the result doesn't catch all overflows; nor if you have
> >multiplications. So a seemingly innocent change made later on could break
> >the test: a case of bad "bug locality".
>
> I can add a comment but I don' t care too much about this issue. Following
> this thought we should not write kernel code at all ;). Everything can be
> screwed up by a mistake from somebody like me ;>>.

we definitely care about 'bug locality' and related issues. Remember,
schedule_timeout() was introduced exactly due to the same thing. (apart
from the slight schedule() speedup which is just a nice side-effect)
Writing kernel code that works is one thing, but one of the real tasks is
to write kernel code that has a smaller chance to be broken later on. Just
witness how much we avoid type casts ...

-- mingo


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.208 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site