Harald Becker ralda at gmx.de
Tue Jul 9 05:16:51 UTC 2013

Hi Bernhard !

>> > Bugzilla Bug #14829 decribe the underlying problem.
>> > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14829
>> Note that, as discussed in the glibc bug tracker, glibc may in
>> the future remove the definition of _POSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING
>> since Linux cannot satisfy its requirements. ...
>Not exactly news, guess why I put this warning in..
>I'll remove the warning tomorrow.

Having a warning is not wrong. IMO we should have such a warning
if _POSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING is missing, but it should be a more
informational message, like:

"process scheduling may not behave in conformance with POSIX"

And then there should be a bigger comment (just ahead of the
#warn) describing the center part of problem. The comment may
give links / references for those who like to have a closer look
on it. The missing comment, was the reason for my confusion and
wrong assumption.


More information about the busybox mailing list