Subject: Re: patch to fix set_itimer() behaviour in boundary cases
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: matthias@corelatus.se,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050115013013.1b3af366.akpm@osdl.org>
References: <16872.55357.771948.196757@antilipe.corelatus.se>
	 <20050115013013.1b3af366.akpm@osdl.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1105830384.16028.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:58:30 +0000
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 971
Lines: 20

On Sad, 2005-01-15 at 09:30, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Matthias Lang <matthias@corelatus.se> 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.


-
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/