On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 15:51 -0800, George Anzinger wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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... > > > That would work for sleep (but glibc uses nanosleep for that) but an itimer > delivers a signal. Rather hard to trap that in glibc. > This one I meant to fix in the kernel fwiw; we can put that loop inside the kernel easily I'm sure
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
