From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755342AbZBHWG5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:06:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758098AbZBHWGh (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:06:37 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([64.71.152.41]:34887 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758091AbZBHWGg (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:06:36 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 14:06:34 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com To: Michael Kerrisk cc: "linux-man@vger.kernel.org" , lkml , Thomas Gleixner , stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: Why does timerfd() only support CLOCK_REALTIME and CLOCK_MONOTONIC? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) X-GPG-FINGRPRINT: CFAE 5BEE FD36 F65E E640 56FE 0974 BF23 270F 474E X-GPG-PUBLIC_KEY: http://www.xmailserver.org/davidel.asc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Davide Libenzi 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