Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 03:35:58 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: deischen@FreeBSD.org Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: libc_r silliness Message-ID: <3F0A9E8E.99CA9BD@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10307071543570.15065-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > I don't really know how to handle this. We can wrap
> > > sched_get_priority_{min,max}(), but how do we know whether
> > > the application wants process priorities or thread
> > > priorities?
> >
> > Ugh. Perhaps the manpage should at least be updated to not
> > reference the macros. What does POSIX say about the confusion
> > between sched_get_priority_{min,max}?
>
> Sure, update the man pages if you want ;-)
>
> I have not found anything yet regarding sched_get_priority_{min,max}
> confusion in the POSIX spec...
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/functions/sched_get_priority_max.html
The functions take a policy parameter; they are supposed to
return "appropriate" values, which I took to mean "appropriate
to the policy parameter supplied at the time they were called":
int sched_get_priority_max(int policy);
int sched_get_priority_min(int policy);
The sched_get_priority_max() and sched_get_priority_min()
functions shall return the appropriate maximum or minimum,
respectively, for the scheduling policy specified by policy.
-- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F0A9E8E.99CA9BD>