Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262316AbVAOUVR (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:21:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262317AbVAOUVR (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:21:17 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:27401 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262316AbVAOUVO (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:21:14 -0500 Subject: Re: patch to fix set_itimer() behaviour in boundary cases From: Arjan van de Ven To: Chris Wedgwood Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Andrew Morton , matthias@corelatus.se, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20050115195504.GA10754@taniwha.stupidest.org> References: <16872.55357.771948.196757@antilipe.corelatus.se> <20050115013013.1b3af366.akpm@osdl.org> <20050115093657.GI3474@holomorphy.com> <1105783125.6300.32.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20050115195504.GA10754@taniwha.stupidest.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:20:59 +0100 Message-Id: <1105820460.6300.86.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on canuck.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (4.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1013 Lines: 25 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/