Re: alarm(3) bug?

[David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost>]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:34:15PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> 
> One alternative is to do what Linux does, which is wrapping the same
> libc code fragment in the kernel by adding alarm() system call - that
> just eliminates copyin(9).  However, I do not really think it is worth.

That doesn't help, the system call can still fail.
The setitimer() system call could have passed the 'ipt' by value
to save the extra copyin - but that is probably insignificant cost.

        David

-- 
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost