> From: Joachim Schmitz [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:23 PM
> To: 'Junio C Hamano'
> Cc: '[email protected]'
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] Support for setitimer() on platforms lacking it
>
> > From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:14 PM
> > To: Joachim Schmitz
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Support for setitimer() on platforms lacking it
> >
> > "Joachim Schmitz" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > >> I see no existing code calls setitimer() with non-NULL ovalue, and I
> > >> do not think we would add a new caller that would do so in any time
> > >> soon, so it may not be a bad idea to drop support of returning the
> > >> remaining timer altogether from this emulation layer (just like
> > >> giving anything other than ITIMER_REAL gives us ENOTSUP). That
> > >> would sidestep the whole "we cannot answer how many milliseconds are
> > >> still remaining on the timer when using emulation based on alarm()".
> > >
> > > Should we leave tv_usec untouched then? That was we round up on
> > > the next (and subsequent?) round(s). Or just set to ENOTSUP in
> > > setitimer if ovalue is !NULL?
> >
> > I was alluding to the latter.
>
> OK, will do that then.
>
> > >> > + switch (which) {
> > >> > + case ITIMER_REAL:
> > >> > + alarm(value->it_value.tv_sec +
> > >> > + (value->it_value.tv_usec > 0) ? 1 : 0);
> > >>
> > >> Why is this capped to 1 second? Is this because no existing code
> > >> uses the timer for anything other than 1 second or shorter? If that
> > >> is the case, that needs at least some documenting (or a possibly
> > >> support for longer expiration, if it is not too cumbersome to add).
> > >
> > > As you mention alarm() has only seconds resolution. It is tv_sec
> > > plus 1 if there are tv_usecs > 0, it is rounding up, so we don't
> > > cancel the alarm() if tv_sec is 0 but tv_usec is not. Looks OK to
> > > me?
> >
> > Can a caller use setitimer to be notified in 5 seconds?
>
> Yes, by setting tv_sec to 5 and tv_usec to 0, or be setting tv_sec to 4 and
> tv_usec to something > 0.
>
> Unless I screwed up the operator precedence?
> To make it clearer (any possibly correct?):
>
> switch (which) {
> case ITIMER_REAL:
> alarm(value->it_value.tv_sec +
> ((value->it_value.tv_usec > 0) ? 1 : 0));
>
> Or even just
> switch (which) {
> case ITIMER_REAL:
> alarm(value->it_value.tv_sec + (value->it_value.tv_usec
> > 0));
OK, here it goes again, not yet as a patch, just plain code for comment:
$ cat itimer.c
/*
* Rely on system headers (<sys/time.h>) to contain struct itimerval
* and git-compat-util.h to have the prototype for git_getitimer().
* As soon as there's a platform where that is not the case, we'd need
* an itimer .h.
*/
#include "../git-compat-util.h"
#ifndef NO_GETITIMER /* not yet needed anywhere else in git */
static
#endif
int git_getitimer(int which, struct itimerval *value)
{
int ret = 0;
if (!value) {
errno = EFAULT;
return -1;
}
switch (which) {
case ITIMER_REAL:
#if 0
value->it_value.tv_usec = 0;
value->it_value.tv_sec = alarm(0);
ret = 0; /* if alarm() fails, we get a SIGLIMIT */
break;
#else
/*
* As an emulation via alarm(0) won't tell us how many
* usecs are left, we don't support it altogether.
*/
#endif
case ITIMER_VIRTUAL:
case ITIMER_PROF:
errno = ENOTSUP;
ret = -1;
break;
default:
errno = EINVAL;
ret = -1;
break;
}
return ret;
}
int git_setitimer(int which, const struct itimerval *value,
struct itimerval *ovalue)
{
int ret = 0;
if (!value ) {
errno = EFAULT;
return -1;
}
if ( value->it_value.tv_sec < 0
|| value->it_value.tv_usec > 1000000
|| value->it_value.tv_usec < 0) {
errno = EINVAL;
return -1;
}
if ((ovalue) && (git_getitimer(which, ovalue) == -1))
return -1; /* errno set in git_getitimer() */
switch (which) {
case ITIMER_REAL:
/* If tv_usec is > 0, round up to next full sec */
alarm(value->it_value.tv_sec + (value->it_value.tv_usec > 0));
ret = 0; /* if alarm() fails, we get a SIGLIMIT */
break;
case ITIMER_VIRTUAL:
case ITIMER_PROF:
errno = ENOTSUP;
ret = -1;
break;
default:
errno = EINVAL;
ret = -1;
break;
}
return ret;
}
Would this pass muster? The previous version had a bug too, of ovalue was !NULL
the switch was never reached.
Bye, Jojo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
