On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:19:42PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > Let me try to come up with a text over the (USA) holiday weekend.
>
> Might you have a chance to look at this still?
Sorry for forgetting this. I will have another chance over the
upcoming international holiday...
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:19:42PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > Let me try to come up with a text over the (USA) holiday weekend.
>
> Might you have a chance to look at this still?
Sorry for forgetting this. I will have another chance over the
upcoming international holiday...
Hi Richard,
On 11/21/2017 05:06 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:06:37AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> I copied that line from clock_gettime() man page. I suppose we want to
>> fix change this in both pages, right? Any suggestions for a good way to
>> express your
Hi Richard,
On 11/21/2017 05:06 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:06:37AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> I copied that line from clock_gettime() man page. I suppose we want to
>> fix change this in both pages, right? Any suggestions for a good way to
>> express your
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:06:37AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> I copied that line from clock_gettime() man page. I suppose we want to
>> fix change this in both pages, right? Any suggestions for a good way
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:06:37AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> I copied that line from clock_gettime() man page. I suppose we want to
>> fix change this in both pages, right? Any suggestions for a good way to
>> express your
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:06:37AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> I copied that line from clock_gettime() man page. I suppose we want to
> fix change this in both pages, right? Any suggestions for a good way to
> express your explanation in the man page? I suppose we don't want to
> go into
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:06:37AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> I copied that line from clock_gettime() man page. I suppose we want to
> fix change this in both pages, right? Any suggestions for a good way to
> express your explanation in the man page? I suppose we don't want to
> go into
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> .B EINVAL
>> +The
>> +.I clk_id
>> +specified is not supported on this system.
>
> We return EINVAL when the clockid is not valid. That can mean
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> .B EINVAL
>> +The
>> +.I clk_id
>> +specified is not supported on this system.
>
> We return EINVAL when the clockid is not valid. That can mean two
> things. Either the
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> .B EINVAL
> +The
> +.I clk_id
> +specified is not supported on this system.
We return EINVAL when the clockid is not valid. That can mean two
things. Either the SYS-V style hard coded positive clockid is out of
range, or the
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> .B EINVAL
> +The
> +.I clk_id
> +specified is not supported on this system.
We return EINVAL when the clockid is not valid. That can mean two
things. Either the SYS-V style hard coded positive clockid is out of
range, or the
I was experimenting with some possible changes to adjtimex(2) and
clock_adjtime(2) and tried to look up the man page to see what the
documented behavior is when I noticed that clock_adjtime() appears
to be the only system call that is currently undocumented.
Before I do any changes to it, this
I was experimenting with some possible changes to adjtimex(2) and
clock_adjtime(2) and tried to look up the man page to see what the
documented behavior is when I noticed that clock_adjtime() appears
to be the only system call that is currently undocumented.
Before I do any changes to it, this
14 matches
Mail list logo