Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:00:37 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: getpriority()/setpriority() Message-ID: <20021017183741.M9513-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20021016104523.G22315@espresso.q9media.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: > It seems to me that the `who' (int) parameter for getpriority(2) and > setpriority(2) isn't capable of properly representing uid_t (unsigned > int) in the PRIO_USER case for UID's greater than 2^32/2. > > This appears to work in practice (though implicit overflow?), but I > think the correct thing to do would be to make the `who' parameter an > id_t (int64_t) and add compatibility osyscalls for existing software. > > The alternative is to make id_t an int and leave the syscalls alone, > with the exception of changing to spelling of int to id_t. uid_t is actually uint32_t, and POSIX requires `who' to have type id_t. u_int instead of int would work here (except on machines with 16-31 bit ints of course), since pgids are passed as themselves so there is no ned for the signed pid_t/(pgids passed as negative pids) hack. Unfortunately, POSIX.1-200x-draft7 specifies that id_t must contain pid_t, and even has a example where an id_t is is used to hold the result of getpid() :-(. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021017183741.M9513-100000>