Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:20:17 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@sw.ru>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] hrtimer_nanosleep: use -EINTR, not -ERESTARTNOHAND
Message-ID: <20080201142017.GA25774@tv-sign.ru>
References: <20080201133755.GA25620@tv-sign.ru> <alpine.LFD.1.00.0802011438020.9204@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0802011438020.9204@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1003
Lines: 32

On 02/01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> > hrtimer_nanosleep:
> > 
> > 	/* Absolute timers do not update the rmtp value and restart: */
> > 	return -ERESTARTNOHAND;
> > 
> > This is not right, -ERESTARTNOHAND means we will do restart if there is no
> > in fact pending signal, and worse, this restart will use the same unchanged
> > "__user *rmtp" parameter.
> 
> -ERESTARTNOHAND is safe here. We want to restart the timer.

Ah. I was greatly confused by the comment, it says "do not ... restart",
now I understand what this _actually_ means.

And yes, I was wrong. If restart is wanted, it is safe to use the original
*rqtp, the timer is HRTIMER_MODE_ABS.

Thanks Thomas!

Andrew, please ignore this patch.

Oleg.

--
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/