From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: knewsgroup@gmail.com (K K) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:07:02 +0800 Subject: Does the mq_timedreceive() fully implement the POSIX specification? In-Reply-To: <1329123064.25984.303.camel@thorin> References: <1329123064.25984.303.camel@thorin> Message-ID: To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org Hi Bernd, On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch < bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at> wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 10:30 +0800, K K wrote: > [....] > > 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? > > I'm not a native English speaker but there is IMHO no problem as the > above quoted part of POSIX simply does not require the check in that > case. But it doesn't forbid the check. > That's my misunderstanding. Thanks for your reply. Regards, Kai > > Bernd > -- > Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd at petrovitsch.priv.at > LUGA : http://www.luga.at > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120214/b84a6c39/attachment.html