On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:42:24PM GMT, наб wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 09:47:22PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 09:36:34PM GMT, наб wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 09:20:28PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > Anyway, for 2008, was it non-standard behavior? > > > It wasn't "non-standard" so much as it was left up to the implementation > > > (still is), except for timer_create(). > > > > > > All implementations agree here, so there's no point in splitting hair IMO > > Okay. Then, maybe, I'd remove the "Linux and NetBSD" bits from the > > commit message, and just say something like all implementations do that? > > Okay, wider implementation survey: > alarm setitimer timer_create > Linux SI_TIMER SI_TIMER SI_TIMER > NetBSD SI_TIMER SI_TIMER SI_TIMER > FreeBSD not not SI_TIMER > illumos not not SI_TIMER > OpenBSD not not N/A > > (Well, OpenBSD doesn't have POSIX timers, so the value of comparing it > is questionable.) > > I wouldn't call it a "Linux extension" because implementations are free > to pick anything for setitimer and alarm signals (just like they are free > to implement alarm in terms of setitimer). > > But also clearly not all implementations do this. > But also /some/ non-Linux ones do. > > But also saying something happens "Under Linux" here is goofy, > because these are linux man-pages. > > Maybe NOTES: "POSIX only guarantees SI_TIMER for signals created by > timer_create(2). Implementations are free to also provide it for other > types of timers. The Linux behaviour matches NetBSD."? LGTM. Thanks for the research! Cheers, Alex > > Best, -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
