Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:45:10 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: nice standards complaince issue On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:23:08PM +0100, Justin Cormack wrote: > Since glibc 2.2.4, nice() is implemented as a library function that calls > getpriority(2) to obtain the new nice value to be returned to the > caller. With this implementation, a successful call can legitimately > return -1. To reliably detect an error, set errno to 0 before the call, > and check its value when nice() returns -1. Thanks for the heads-up. Actually, I think there's a much bigger issue with both nice and setpriority: they're affecting one thread rather than the process. This may technically not be non-conforming as long as SCHED_OTHER scheduling is in effect, but it's sketchy. Basically this all stems from a complete failure of Linux to support process contention scope and the [PS] option of POSIX... (despite glibc claiming to support it!) In any case, the issue you reported should be fixed. Do you have a proposed patch? Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.