[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: setitimer() bug? (Linux, glibc 2.2)
From: |
Michael Kerrisk |
Subject: |
Re: setitimer() bug? (Linux, glibc 2.2) |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:28:55 +0200 |
> "Michael Kerrisk" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > 17221 The setitimer( ) function shall fail if:
> > 17222 [EINVAL] The value argument is not in canonical form. (In canonical
> > form, the number of 17223 microseconds is a non-negative integer less
> > than 1,000,000 and the number of 17224 seconds is a non-negative
> > integer.)
>
> setitimer() is implemented in the kernel.
Yes, that I'm aware of - it was implicit in my earlier message. My
question really related to the fact that for some Linux system calls glibc
provides a wrapper which does extra work, including, in some cases,
minimal error checking (e.g. setfsuid()). Anyway, I take it from what
your saying that this isn't something to tackle in glibc.
Cheers
Michael
__________________________________________
Michael Kerrisk
mailto: address@hidden
"Marx: Nice try, but MacDonalds won"