Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, george anzinger wrote:
>
>>Lets consider this one on its own merits. What SHOULD sleep do when
>>asked to sleep for MAX_INT number of jiffies or more, i.e. when
>>jiffies overflows? My notion, above, it that it is clearly an error.
>
>
> My suggestion (in order of preference):
> - sleep the max amount, and then restart as if a signal had happened
I think this will require a 64-bit expire in the timer_struct
(actually it would not be treated as such, but the struct would still
need the added bits). Is this ok?
I will look at the problem in detail and see if there might be another
way without the need of the added bits.
> - sleep the max amount (old behavior)
> - consider it an error (new behavior)
>
> In this case the error case actually helped find the other unrelated bug,
> so in this case the error actually _helped_ us. However, that was only
> "help" from a kernel perspective, from a user perspective I definitely
> think that it makes no sense to have "sleep(largenum)" return -EINVAL.
>
> And in the end it's the user that matters.
>
Hm... I changed it to what it is to make it easier to track down
problems in the test code... and this was user code. My thinking was
that such large values are clear errors, and having the code "hang" in
the sleep just hides the problem. But then, I NEVER make a system
call without checking for errors.... And, I was making a LOT of sleep
calls and wanted to know which one(s) were wrong.
-- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:23 EST