Re: patch to fix set_itimer() behaviour in boundary cases

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 11:55 -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:58:45AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> > I don't see a valid reason to restrict/reject input that is accepted
> > now and dealt with reasonably because some standard says so (if you
> > design a new api, following the standard is nice of course). I don't
> > see "doesn't reject a condition that can reasonable be dealt with"
> > as a good reason to go double ABI at all.
> 
> we could printk for now and if nobody reports this to lkml (as they
> do/did with oldish tcpdump/libpcap a while ago) we could -EINVAL
> 

but why????

if someone wants the stuff rejected in a posix confirm way, he can do
these tests easily in the syscall wrapper he needs anyway for this
function.


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