From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761091Ab2COLC6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 07:02:58 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:39584 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753142Ab2COLC4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 07:02:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:02:49 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Linus Torvalds cc: Andrew Morton , Akira Takeuchi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Carsten Emde , Manfred Spraul Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH] mqueue: Ignore the validity of abs_timeout parameter when message can be performed immediately In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20120302164234.4938.38390934@jp.panasonic.com> <20120314144601.ccc50a68.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks, tglx