bug-glibc
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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"





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]