Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Am 03.09.2012 11:31, schrieb Joachim Schmitz:
>>
>> Hmm, I see that there the errors are handled differently, like this:
>>
>> if (ovalue != NULL)
>> return errno = EINVAL,
>> error("setitimer param 3 != NULL not implemented");
>>
>> Should this be done in my setitimer() too? Or rather be left to the caller?
>> I tend to the later.
>
> The error message is really just a reminder that the implementation is
> not complete. Writing it here has the advantage that it is much more
> accurate than a generic "invalid argument" or "operation not supported"
> error that the caller would be able to write.
Joachim quoted irrelevant (to you) part and made comments on it, but
the issue I raised by Ccing you was about diagnosing NULL passed in
newvalue parameter, which Joachim's code did like this:
> int git_setitimer(int which, const struct itimerval *value,
> struct itimerval *ovalue)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> if (!value ) {
> errno = EFAULT;
> return -1;
EFAULT is good ;-)
The emulation in mingw.c 6072fc3 (Windows: Implement setitimer() and
sigaction()., 2007-11-13) may want to be tightened in a similar way.
but mingw.c doesn't seem to.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html