From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932424Ab2CPFIf (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:08:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.mei.co.jp ([133.183.100.20]:49246 "EHLO smtp.mei.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751818Ab2CPFId (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:08:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:11:28 +0900 From: Akira Takeuchi To: Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH] mqueue: Ignore the validity of abs_timeout parameter when message can be performed immediately Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Carsten Emde , Manfred Spraul In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <20120316141128.DD0A.38390934@jp.panasonic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.56.05 [ja] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:02:49 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > With the current code, checking the validity of the timeout falls out > > from what we do. I don't think we need to work around that, based on > > the POSIX wording. And if there are no applications that actually > > broke, I don't think we should care. > > > > Is there some other standard that says that you *have* to let crazy > > invalid values go? > > Not that I'm aware of. Everything I found so far is copied from the > POSIX spec. Okay. I agree with you on the interpretation of POSIX spec. Andrew, could you remove my patch from -mm tree ? I'll post a patch to LTP porject to modify the test program. Thank you, Akira Takeuchi