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

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 00:58 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sad, 2005-01-15 at 09:30, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Matthias Lang <matthias@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > These are things we probably cannot change now.  All three are arguably
> > sensible behaviour and do satisfy the principle of least surprise.  So
> > there may be apps out there which will break if we "fix" these things.
> > 
> > If the kernel version was 2.7.0 then well maybe...
> 
> These are things we should fix. They are bugs. Since there is no 2.7
> plan pick a date to fix it. We should certainly error the overflow case
> *now* because the behaviour is undefined/broken. The other cases I'm not
> clear about. setitimer() is a library interface and it can do the basic
> checking and error if it wants to be strictly posixly compliant.

why error?
I'm pretty sure we can make a loop in the setitimer code that detects
we're at the end of jiffies but haven't upsurped the entire interval the
user requested yet, so that the code should just do another round of
sleeping...


-
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/