Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 22:39:04 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@kot.ne.mediaone.net> Cc: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com>, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com>, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, bde@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/13644 Message-ID: <200001240539.WAA00982@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:24:02 EST." <200001240524.AAA46117@rtfm.newton> References: <200001240524.AAA46117@rtfm.newton>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200001240524.AAA46117@rtfm.newton> Mikhail Teterin writes:
: Where does it guarantee that? Man-pages say, it is guaranteed to sleep
: no MORE then the timeout, not less. Is there some other specification,
: that's different from the man-pages, or are you talking from the
: implementation point of view?
The man pages say exactly:
If timeout is a non-nil pointer, it specifies a maximum interval to wait
for the selection to complete.
Which doesn't say that it will sleep no more than this. It says that
it will wait no longer than this for the selection to complete. It
doesn't guarantee anything, imho. It doesn't guarnatee that you will
be scheduled at any given time.
Besides, POSIX's definition of select clearly states what I said.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001240539.WAA00982>