From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Domaigne Subject: Re: For review: pthread_setschedparam.3 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:22:24 +0100 Message-ID: <4921C470.5070807@domaigne.com> References: <491F3AA6.6050303@domaigne.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Cc: linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, josv-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, "brian m. carlson" , Bert Wesarg , Stefan Puiu , Karsten Weiss List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Hi Michael, I've only a minor comment left. I've set the following reminder: - effect of sched_setscheduler() on MT-process. - priority adjustment =3D> later, when dealing with the topic on prio=20 inheritance/ceiling. Cheers, Lo=EFc. -- >>> .PP >>> .BR pthread_setschedparam () >>> may additionally fail with the following errors: >>> .TP >>> .B EINVAL >>> .I policy >>> is not a recognized policy, or >>> .I param >>> does not make sense for the >>> .IR policy . >> I got troubled by the "may additionally", as "may" has a particular = meaning >> in POSIX.1... >> >> But I guess, you just want to express that pthread_setschedparam() s= hall >> fail if the policy or the param is invalid, right? >=20 > Yes. What about using "pthread_setschedparam() can additionally [...]" in a=20 similar fashion to pthread_setcancelstate(3)" ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html