Matthias Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The linux implementation of setitimer() doesn't behave quite as >> expected. I found several problems: >> 1. POSIX says that negative times should cause setitimer() to >> return -1 and set errno to EINVAL. In linux, the call succeeds. >> 2. POSIX says that time values with usec >= 1000000 should >> cause the same behaviour. In linux, the call succeeds. >> 3. If large time values are given, linux quietly truncates them >> to the maximum time representable in jiffies. On 2.4.4 on PPC, >> that's about 248 days. On 2.6.10 on x86, that's about 24 days. >> POSIX doesn't really say what to do in this case, but looking at >> established practice, i.e. "what BSD does", since the call comes >> from BSD, *BSD returns -1 if the time is out of range.
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 01:30:13AM -0800, Andrew Morton 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... We can easily do a "rolling upgrade" by adding new versions of the system calls, giving glibc and apps grace periods to adjust to them, and nuking the old versions in a few years. -- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
