Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:05:25 -0400 From: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> To: freebsd-docs@freebsd.org Subject: PR docs/21708 Message-ID: <20031016010525.GA14918@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What is the procedure for suggesting a PR that appears to be old and
forgotten be closed?
PR docs/21708 complains that the wording for the "timeout" value
in kevent(2) is ambiguous. I don't know if someone fixed it on their
own but the current wording is:
If
timeout is a non-NULL pointer, it specifies a maximum interval to wait
for an event, which will be interpreted as a struct timespec. If timeout
is a NULL pointer, kevent() waits indefinitely. To effect a poll, the
timeout argument should be non-NULL, pointing to a zero-valued timespec
structure. The same array may be used for the changelist and eventlist.
That does seem to address the originator's concerns - "specifies a maximum
interval" sounds like it is a relative value to me.
Thanks.
--
Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodore Geisel |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031016010525.GA14918>