Re: pselect() modifying timeout

2005-08-08 Thread Alan Cox
On Gwe, 2005-08-05 at 12:42 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > 1. POSIX made the behaviour of pselect() explicit -- the >timeout must not be modified. The idea was to avoid the >vagueness of the select() specification; it had to be vague >because of existing implementations. By contras

Re: pselect() modifying timeout

2005-08-05 Thread Michael Kerrisk
> Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > Please consider making Linux pselect() conform to POSIX on this > > point. > > There is no question the implementation will conform. But this not > dependent on changing the syscall interface. We deliberately decided to > not require the kernel interface to be diffe

Re: pselect() modifying timeout

2005-08-05 Thread Ulrich Drepper
Michael Kerrisk wrote: > Please consider making Linux pselect() conform to POSIX on this > point. There is no question the implementation will conform. But this not dependent on changing the syscall interface. We deliberately decided to not require the kernel interface to be different from sele

pselect() modifying timeout

2005-08-05 Thread Michael Kerrisk
Hello David, By the way, looking at the comments to the last version of the pselect()/ppoll()patch, I see that the treatment of the timeout argument is made dependent on the personality. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111883591220436&w=2 I'm not sure that this is a good idea;