Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262313AbVAUHvr (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:51:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262312AbVAUHvq (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:51:46 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:35337 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262311AbVAUHtq (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:49:46 -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: <41F03AD2.4010803@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> <1106208433.4192.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <41F03AD2.4010803@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:49:28 +0100 Message-Id: <1106293769.4182.64.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: 657 Lines: 20 > > > > This one I meant to fix in the kernel fwiw; we can put that loop inside > > the kernel easily I'm sure > > Yes, but it will increase the data size of the timer... > eh how? the way I think it can be done is to just have multiple timers fire until the total time is up. It's not a performance issue (a timer firing every 24 days.. who cares, esp since such long delays are rare anyway) after all... - 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/