Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262493AbVAPMMO (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Jan 2005 07:12:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262491AbVAPMMN (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Jan 2005 07:12:13 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:35600 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262493AbVAPML4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Jan 2005 07:11:56 -0500 Subject: Re: patch to fix set_itimer() behaviour in boundary cases From: Arjan van de Ven To: Alan Cox Cc: Andrew Morton , matthias@corelatus.se, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <1105830384.16028.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <16872.55357.771948.196757@antilipe.corelatus.se> <20050115013013.1b3af366.akpm@osdl.org> <1105830384.16028.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:11:36 +0100 Message-Id: <1105877497.8462.0.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: 1284 Lines: 27 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 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/