On Sun, 5 Oct 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> In any case this all looks confusing to me. sys_timer_create() does
>
> new_timer->sigq->info.si_value = event.sigev_value;
> new_timer->sigq->info.si_tid = new_timer->it_id;
>
> later, this writes to the differents members (_rt and _timer) in the
> same union. But the comment in struct siginfo says that we should use
> _timer. And copy_siginfo_to_user() reports si_tid and si_ptr, this
> again reads _timer and _rt. This should actually work, _sigval should
> have the same offset in both struct's, still it looks confusing imho.
It does.
> Perhaps we should change
>
> #define si_value _sifields._rt._sigval
> #define si_int _sifields._rt._sigval.sival_int
> #define si_ptr _sifields._rt._sigval.sival_ptr
>
> to use _timer instead. Nevermind, this is off-topic.
Well that would cause mqueue, perf and procfs to read/set the timer
fields. Odd as well.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
