Michael,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 4/1/20 7:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> (b): Arming the timer in that case is indeed very questionable, but it
>> could be argued that because the clock was set event happened with
>> the old expiry value that the new expiry value is not affected.
>>
>> I'd be happy to change that and not arm the timer in the case of a
>> pending cancel, but I fear that some user space already depends on
>> that behaviour.
>
> Yes, that's the risk, of course. So, shall we just document all
> this in the manual page?
I think so.
Thanks,
tglx
