From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 18 17:22:18 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7599037B400 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kali.avantgo.com (shadow.avantgo.com [64.157.226.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B3743E58 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:22:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scott@avantgo.com) Received: from river.avantgo.com ([10.11.30.114]) by kali.avantgo.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:22:15 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:18:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Hess To: Terry Lambert Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: select() behavior when system date changes In-Reply-To: <3D374509.DA9EF368@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2002 00:22:15.0940 (UTC) FILETIME=[55E10440:01C22EBA] Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Arguably, select(2)'s timer *should* be a delta timer, rather than an > endpoint timer, but... absolute, or relative? The answer depends on the > application, doesn't it? Absolutely absolute. Applications should be written to accomodate early returns from select(). [Of course, nobody but _nobody_ seems to bother coding with the Unix paradigm of returning EINTR or similar results rather than restarting the system call in mind.] Later, scott To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message