On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
On 9/23/05, Davide Libenzi <[email protected]> wrote:
As reported by Vadim Lobanov, epoll_wait() did not handle correctly
timeouts <0 (only the -1 case was MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT'd).
Signed-off-by: Davide Libenzi <[email protected]>
Arrgggh, this is as wrong as sys_poll() was before! :)
--- a/fs/eventpoll.c 2005-09-23 10:06:45.000000000 -0700
+++ b/fs/eventpoll.c 2005-09-23 10:09:35.000000000 -0700
@@ -1507,7 +1507,7 @@
* and the overflow condition. The passed timeout is in milliseconds,
* that why (t * HZ) / 1000.
*/
- jtimeout = timeout == -1 || timeout > (MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT - 1000) / HZ ?
+ jtimeout = timeout < 0 || timeout > (MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT - 1000) / HZ ?
@timeout is in miliseconds, per the comment, yes? If so, then
timeout [msecs] > MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT [jiffies] - 1000 [jiffies] / HZ
[jiffies / sec]
Sh*t, you're right! Reposting soon.
- Davide
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |