Andrew Morton wrote:
> george anzinger <email@example.com> wrote:
>>-void do_settimeofday(struct timeval *tv)
>> +int do_settimeofday(struct timespec *tv)
>> + if ((unsigned long)tv->tv_nsec > NSEC_PER_SEC)
>> + return -EINVAL;
> Should that be ">="?
Yep, thanks for catching that.
> Is there any reasonable way to avoid breaking existing
> do_settimeofday() implementations? That's just more grief all round.
Of course there is a way. The question is which way leads to the most
grief :). The test could be made in the calling routines, but then it
would need to be made in both posix-timer.c and time.c. I suppose it
would be better to do it that way as both are in common code and the
"arch" warnning would go away. Tomorrow...
-- George Anzinger firstname.lastname@example.org High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:22 EST