[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902081405120.18839@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 14:06:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
cc: "linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Why does timerfd() only support CLOCK_REALTIME and
CLOCK_MONOTONIC?
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >
> >> > @@ -186,12 +187,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(timerfd_create, int, clo
> >> > BUILD_BUG_ON(TFD_CLOEXEC != O_CLOEXEC);
> >> > BUILD_BUG_ON(TFD_NONBLOCK != O_NONBLOCK);
> >> >
> >> > - if (flags & ~(TFD_CLOEXEC | TFD_NONBLOCK))
> >> > + if ((flags & ~TFD_FLAGS_SET) ||
> >> > + invalid_clockid(clockid))
> >> > return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> Oh! Does this mean that in 2.6.2[789] it wasn't possible to use
> >> TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME?
> >
> > No, sorry, my fault. Patch is wrong. In "create" ATM we accept only
> > FCNTL-like flags. In "settime" we get TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME (that needs a
> > check too for EINVAL).
>
> That last piece should be a separate patch, that also gets pushed back
> into -stable. Do you agree?
Hmm, it's a check for extra bits that do not cause any harm. Dunno if it
fits -stable requirements. You should ask Greg.
- Davide
--
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