From owner-cvs-all  Thu Aug 19 12:55:32 1999
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 465F715147; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: (from eischen@localhost)
	by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id PAA09532;
	Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:54:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:54:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
Message-Id: <199908191954.PAA09532@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
To: bright@wintelcom.net, eischen@vigrid.com
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc_r/uthread uthread_kern.c
Cc: alfred@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org,
	cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, fthylmann@stats.net
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> I'm not too sure, the checking of overflow that was there previously was
> insufficient, i've talked to the person experiancing the bug and they
> don't use pthread_cond_timedwait, and i doubt that they are using 
> sleep and/or select.

Well, given two _valid_ timespecs, it should be sufficient.  Perhaps
we've got a bug in a timespec/timeval computation internal to libc_r.
If so, it should be fixed.  If it's coming from an external interface,
then an appropriate error should be returned.

I hate to cover things up.  This is FreeBSD, aren't we suppose to be
*annoyingly* correct? ;-)

Dan Eischen
eischen@vigrid.com


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message