Hi Stanislaw, Thansk for your info.
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 01:30:50PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > Hi Dong Zhu > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 06:10:19PM +0800, Dong Zhu wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c > > index c7f31aa..cc03290 100644 > > --- a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c > > +++ b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c > > @@ -1413,9 +1413,9 @@ static int posix_cpu_nsleep(const clockid_t > > which_clock, int flags, > > /* > > * Diagnose required errors first. > > */ > > - if (CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(which_clock) && > > - (CPUCLOCK_PID(which_clock) == 0 || > > - CPUCLOCK_PID(which_clock) == current->pid)) > > + if (CPUCLOCK_PID(which_clock) == current->pid || > > + (CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(which_clock) && > > + CPUCLOCK_PID(which_clock) == 0)) > > return -EINVAL; > > Nope, this is wrong. We have to allow own pid process clock, because it > can be used correctly on multi-threaded processes. Own tid thread clock Yes, you are right, I really neglected this point. > has no sense and we correctly return -EINVAL in such case. > > We could possibly add check for own pid together with check if process > consist of one thread, but that is too complicated IMHO especially > taking into account that threads on the process can be destroyed and > created dynamically. > Agree, really so complicated. -- Best Regards, Dong Zhu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
