Re: Why does timerfd() only support CLOCK_REALTIME and CLOCK_MONOTONIC?

[Davide Libenzi]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/