Micheal,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 3/30/20 12:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> That's the reason why I rejected the attempt to mitigate that particular
>> 0 tick issue in timerfd as it would just scratch a particular itch but
>> still not provide any guarantee. So having the '0' return documented is
>> the right way to go.
>
> Thanks for the incredibly detailed follow-up Thomas (which all
> landed in my commit message). I've applied a patch almost exactly
> the same as the text I showed above (and it's pushed to Git).
"timerfd_create.2: Negetive..."
That first word after the colon looks weird :)
>> All of 2020 is a bust, I expect. Perhaps we see us at a conference
> in 2021 ;-).
Let's see how that evolves and in the worst case we can meet for a beer
once we gained antibodies one way or the other. For now let's stay safe
and all I can offer is a virtual 'Prosit' :)
Thanks,
tglx
