george anzinger <george@mvista.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Is it not possible to just sit in a loop, sleeping for 0x7fffffff jiffies
on each iteration? (Until the final partial bit of course)
> 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.
If an app wants to sleep forever, calling
while (1)
sleep(MAX_INT);
seems like a reasonable approach. I'd expect quite a lot of applications
would be doing that.
-
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