|
|
|
Re: Does the mq_timedreceive() fully implement the POSIX specification? | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
Hi!
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 10:30 +0800, K K wrote:
[....]
I'm not a native English speaker but there is IMHO no problem as the> I am doing POSIX test on linux. And for mq_timedreceive() in POSIX spec
> 2008 Issue 7, Line 43787:
>
> The validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if a
> message can be removed from the message queue immediately.
>
> But when I run test case mq_timedreceive/10-2 of POSIX suite (can be viewed
> at :
> http://ltp.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ltp/ltp.git;a=blob;f=testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/mq_timedreceive/10-2.c;h=49ee4f243fc5046a965a551650d8697217faac35;hb=HEAD),
> mq_timedreceive() could get the message without wait, but the timeout is
> still validated.
>
> Do we intend to do so, or the implementation needs update?
above quoted part of POSIX simply does not require the check in that
case. But it doesn't forbid the check.
Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
[Newbies FAQ] [Linux Kernel Development] [IETF Annouce] [Git] [Networking] [Security] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux Networking] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Linux ACPI]
![]() |
![]() |