Re: [PATCH 1/2] Support for setitimer() on platforms lacking it
- From
Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
- Date
- Sep 3, 2012, 18:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <5044F3DB.9060908@kdbg.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <000d01cd89b6$d5ba6c30$812f4490$@schmitz-digital.de>
Am 03.09.2012 11:31, schrieb Joachim Schmitz:
Show 9 quoted lines
>
> Hmm, I see that there the errors are handled differently, like this:
>
> if (ovalue != NULL)
> return errno = EINVAL,
> error("setitimer param 3 != NULL not implemented");
>
> Should this be done in my setitimer() too? Or rather be left to the caller?
> I tend to the later.The error message is really just a reminder that the implementation is not complete. Writing it here has the advantage that it is much more accurate than a generic "invalid argument" or "operation not supported" error that the caller would be able to write.
-- Hannes