This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] resolv: Allow new "timeout-ms" option

From: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>
To: Paul Stewart <pstew at chromium dot org>
Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, vapier at chromium dot org
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:42:05 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] resolv: Allow new "timeout-ms" option
References: <20120621144313.A1F34201EC@glenhelen.mtv.corp.google.com> <4FE3504B.70705@cs.ucla.edu> <CAMcMvsi8YtWzKNOBWDoepvJRQknKAC5PVBVJKA=XnLDO5sdiUg@mail.gmail.com>

On 06/21/2012 10:24 AM, Paul Stewart wrote:
> I don't intend on changing the minimum timeout for the
> entirety of glibc.

Yes, of course, but my question was more the reverse:
why should the use of RES_TIMEOUT_MS change the
default timeout?  Wouldn't it make more sense if
RES_TIMEOUT_MS affects only the interpretation
of the timeout field?  That is, if the user specifies
a negative timeout, which is obviously bogus,
shouldn't the code silently adjust the timeout to 1 s
regardless of whether RES_TIMEOUT_MS is specified?

Is there a use case that indicates which is the better
way to go here?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] resolv: Allow new "timeout-ms" option
  - From: Paul Stewart

References:
- [PATCH] resolv: Allow new "timeout-ms" option
  - From: Paul Stewart
- Re: [PATCH] resolv: Allow new "timeout-ms" option
  - From: Paul Eggert
- Re: [PATCH] resolv: Allow new "timeout-ms" option
  - From: Paul Stewart

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]