[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071222014919.GA4477@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:49:19 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: andi@...stfloor.org, mtk.manpages@...glemail.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, lkml@...idb.org, paulus@...ba.org,
drepper@...hat.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, schwab@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: compat_sys_times() bogus until jiffies >= 0.
> I'm suggesting that you set the condition codes based upon whether
> there is an error or not.
And the only way the syscall code could find out if there is an error is by
checking err < 0 && err >= -4096 like glibc (except for the compat
syscall on 64bit kernel case)
Or rewrite all code that returns errors to system calls to pass
a separate flag too.
> That is the critical thing x86 doesn't do
> that all the other platforms do.
It doesn't do it because it's useless without a kernel rewrite.
I frankly doubt it really works on Sparc :-) Maybe it could work
there on a hypothetical rewritten kernel, but not today.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists