[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: POSIX timer syscalls
David Mosberger wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:53:50 -0800, george anzinger <> said:
> George> I think there is a bit of a problem in the idr code
> George> (.../lib/idr.c) which manages the id allocation. Seems we
> George> are returning "long" from functions declared as int. If I
> George> remember the code correctly this will work, but it does
> George> eliminate the sequence number that should be in the high 8
> George> bits of the id.
> Yes. We have had some reports of problems with POSIX timers and I
> suspect this might be the reason (though I don't know what the exact
> code-base was that the person reporting the problem was using).
> George> This assumes that you never allocate more than 2,147,483,647
> George> timers at once :) I will look at this and send in a patch.
> George> I think we should return what ever timer_t is, so we should
> George> run that to ground first.
> Yes, that would be better. According to Uli, a 32-bit timer_t is fine
> as far as the standards are concerned. That's good.
> George> I suspect we should also have a look at all the structures
> George> with a view to alignment issues or is this not a problem?
> George> I.e. is this struct ok:
> George> struct { long a; int b; long c; }
> Such code may be OK correctnesswise, but to avoid wasting space, it's
> clearly better to list larger members first.

Ok, I will fix all the above and shoot you a patch. I assume you can
test it on a 64-bit platform. Right?

> --david

George Anzinger
Preemption patch:

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 13:33    [W:0.049 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site