Re: [PATCH 8/9] autoconf: Check for timer_settime

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 14:08 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Karsten Blees <karsten.blees@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > While the timer extension (timer_settime) has graduated to mandatory in
> > the current POSIX spec, the monotonic clock extension is still optional
> > today (i.e. not necessarily supported even on newer Unices). In contrast
> > to this, the XSI extensions seem to be widely supported.
> >
> > IMO the 'obsolescent' marker in the current POSIX spec is no reason to
> > spring into action (at least not yet). E.g. utimes (also in <sys/time.h>)
> > has been marked LEGACY in the 2004 version and is no longer LEGACY today.
> > Btw., we'd also have to find a replacement for gettimeofday and probably
> > a lot of other stuff...
> >
> > Therefore I tend to agree with Hannes that we should stick with setitimer
> > and emulate it on systems that don't have it (as we do on Windows).
> 
> Sounds sensible to me.

Ya that makes sense. Was thinking too much about compatability code for
Linux kernel drivers, which is a different issue.

Let's go with re-implementing settimer in terms of timer_settime on the
one system we have information that doesn't support settimer.

I could spin that patch, but I think the original author should, since
he's the one who could actually test it.

Regards,
Jake

> --
> 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


��.n��������+%������w��{.n��������n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]