From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 15 18:05:27 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1E516A4B3
	for <freebsd-docs@freebsd.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU (electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU
	[128.205.32.2])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBC643F85
	for <freebsd-docs@freebsd.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU)
Received: from electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU (kensmith@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	h9G15Pus015443
	for <freebsd-docs@freebsd.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:05:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from kensmith@localhost)
	by electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id h9G15PbV015442
	for freebsd-docs@freebsd.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:05:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:05:25 -0400
From: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU>
To: freebsd-docs@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20031016010525.GA14918@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject: PR docs/21708
X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Documentation project <freebsd-doc.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc>,
	<mailto:freebsd-doc-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-doc>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-doc@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-doc-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc>,
	<mailto:freebsd-doc-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:05:27 -0000


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 |