Hi Bernd,<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:07 AM, K K <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:knewsgroup@gmail.com">knewsgroup@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Bernd,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at" target="_blank">bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi!<br>
<br>
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 10:30 +0800, K K wrote:<br>
[....]<br>
<div><div></div><div>> I am doing POSIX test on linux. And for mq_timedreceive() in POSIX spec<br>
> 2008 Issue 7, Line 43787:<br>
><br>
> The validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if a<br>
> message can be removed from the message queue immediately.<br>
><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Sorry about that I miss the previous sentence, the whole paragraph is:<br><br>Under no circumstance shall the operation fail with a timeout if a message can be removed from<br>
the message queue immediately. The validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if a<br>message can be removed from the message queue immediately. <br></div><br>It seems that the first sentence is more affirmative that the timeout should not be checked when a message can be removed from message queue immediately.<br>
How do you think?<br><br>Thanks,<br>Kai<br></div><br>