Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: timer_settime() and ECANCELED | Date | Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:49:18 +0200 |
| |
Michael,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> 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
| |