Re: timer_settime() and ECANCELED

[Thomas Gleixner]

Michael,

"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 4/1/20 7:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> (b): Arming the timer in that case is indeed very questionable, but it
>>      could be argued that because the clock was set event happened with
>>      the old expiry value that the new expiry value is not affected.
>>      
>>      I'd be happy to change that and not arm the timer in the case of a
>>      pending cancel, but I fear that some user space already depends on
>>      that behaviour.
>
> Yes, that's the risk, of course. So, shall we just document all 
> this in the manual page?

I think so.

Thanks,

        tglx