Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262073AbVATIIt (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:08:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262072AbVATIIs (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:08:48 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:63496 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262075AbVATIHc (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:07:32 -0500 Subject: Re: patch to fix set_itimer() behaviour in boundary cases From: Arjan van de Ven To: george@mvista.com Cc: Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , matthias@corelatus.se, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <41EEF284.2010600@mvista.com> References: <16872.55357.771948.196757@antilipe.corelatus.se> <20050115013013.1b3af366.akpm@osdl.org> <1105830384.16028.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1105877497.8462.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <41EEF284.2010600@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:07:12 +0100 Message-Id: <1106208433.4192.0.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: 1673 Lines: 37 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 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 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/