[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1907211104350.15063-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:32:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: mtk.manpages@...il.com, <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Error (?) in man page for ppoll(2)
Here are two extracts from the man page for ppoll(2) (from the
man-pages 4.16 package; the 5.01 version is the same):
Specifying a negative value in timeout means an infinite timeout.
Other than the difference in the precision of the timeout argument, the
following ppoll() call:
ready = ppoll(&fds, nfds, tmo_p, &sigmask);
is equivalent to atomically executing the following calls:
sigset_t origmask;
int timeout;
timeout = (tmo_p == NULL) ? -1 :
(tmo_p->tv_sec * 1000 + tmo_p->tv_nsec / 1000000);
pthread_sigmask(SIG_SETMASK, &sigmask, &origmask);
ready = poll(&fds, nfds, timeout);
pthread_sigmask(SIG_SETMASK, &origmask, NULL);
But if tmo_p->tv_sec is negative, the ppoll() call is not equivalent to
the corresponding poll() call. The kernel rejects negative values of
tv_sec with an EINVAL error; it does not interpret the value as meaning
an infinite timeout.
(Yes, the kernel interprets tmo_p == NULL as an infinite timeout, but
the man page is still wrong for the case tmo_p->tv_sec < 0.)
Suggested fix: Following the end of the second extract above, add:
except that negative time values in tmo_p are not interpreted
as an infinite timeout.
Also, in the ERRORS section, change the text for EINVAL to:
EINVAL The nfds value exceeds the RLIMIT_NOFILE value or
*tmo_p contains an invalid (negative) time value.
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists