On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 02:01:01AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 18 October 2012 16:06:28 Sami Kerola wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Sunday 14 October 2012 16:20:59 Sami Kerola wrote:
> > >> POSIX.1-2001 declares usleep is obsolete.
> > >
> > > this is true, but it seems like a better answer would be to add a
> > > usleep test to configure and provide a local fallback using nanosleep
> > > if it doesn't exist.
> >
> > Is that necessary? There has been for example in old mount since March
> > 2007[1] nanosleep() call, and I cannot remember anyone complaining it
> > causing problems.
> >
> > [1] commit dc8fdc57cd3ba0658cf4ab05031695c2d2965f93
>
> i think you misinterpreted my objection. i don't have a problem with calling
> nanosleep() -- when it makes sense. replacing a simple call to a function
> that, while no longer part of the latest standard, was mandated for many many
> years, and will most likely never be removed from C libraries that have
> already been providing it (since it'd be an ABI break), with a more
> complicated call for no real reason is pointless imo. further, you'd be
> fighting a losing battle: developers will most likely be working & testing on a
> glibc system where usleep does exist and works fine, so they won't notice if it
> were added again.
>
> hence i suggested a trivial middle ground that is future proof and doesn't
> penalize systems that do include usleep (i.e. glibc i.e. what the majority of
> people run): if you actually have a system that lacks usleep, then add usleep
> to the AC_CHECK_FUNCS tests in configure.ac, and then add the simple
> replacement to include/c.h:
> #ifndef HAVE_USLEEP
> static inline int usleep(useconds_t usec)
> {
> struct timespec waittime;
> waittime.tv_sec = usec / 1000000L;
> waittime.tv_nsec = (usec % 1000000L) * 1000;
> return nanosleep(&waittime, NULL);
> }
> #endif
>
> now everything should "just work".
Exactly this solution we use for now (since 2009):
$ cat include/usleep.h
#ifndef UTIL_LINUX_USLEEP_H
#define UTIL_LINUX_USLEEP_H
#ifndef HAVE_USLEEP
/*
* This function is marked obsolete in POSIX.1-2001 and removed in
* POSIX.1-2008. It is replaced with nanosleep().
*/
# define usleep(x) \
do { \
struct timespec xsleep; \
xsleep.tv_sec = x / 1000 / 1000; \
xsleep.tv_nsec = (x - xsleep.tv_sec * 1000 * 1000) * 1000; \
nanosleep(&xsleep, NULL); \
} while (0)
#endif
#endif /* UTIL_LINUX_USLEEP_H */
... so I don't think we have to check change anything.
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Monday 15 October 2012 04:36:43 Sami Kerola wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> > On Sunday 14 October 2012 16:21:10 Sami Kerola wrote:
> > >> >> + if (utimensat(path, &epoch, 0) < 0)
> > >> >
> > >> > err, did you test this at all ? utimensat() takes 4 args one of
> > >> > which is
> > >> > a reference file descriptor.
> > >>
> > >> I thought I did, but what ever I did where partly unsuccessful.
> > >
> > > cramfs isn't built by default, so you'll need to pass the right
> > > configure flag
> >
> > *sigh* I see. And I dropped the patch.
> >
> > I wonder if anyone is ever reaching code that requires INCLUDE_FS_TESTS
> > defined. Should there be a configure --enable-fs-crams-tests switch? If
> > that sort of switch is added it should perhaps be included when
> > --enable-most-builds is set. Comments, opinions?
>
> i would add a new check target to disk-utils/Makemodule.am
>
> check_PROGRAMS += test_mkfs.cramfs
> test_mkfs_cramfs_SOURCES = $(mkfs_cramfs_SOURCES)
> test_mkfs_cramfs_LDADD = $(mkfs_cramfs_LDADD)
> test_mkfs_cramfs_CFLAGS = -DINCLUDE_FS_TESTS
Good point. Fixed.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
