Re: signal queue resource - Posix timers

[Timothy Miller]

Ed L Cashin wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> 
>>
>>Well, I've never run into it and it sounds really obscure, but I agree
>>in principle that it's better to return an explicit error to userspace
>>than to silently fail, at least when it's feasible (obviously the kernel
>>can be beaten to death with events faster than it can deliver them, so
>>it won't always be feasible).
> 
> 
> Why couldn't this be a configurable per-user thing like RSS rlimits?
> 

Pardon me for butting in...

It seems to me that returning an error on unrecoverable failure is 
ALWAYS the right thing to do.

We're not doing that right now, and that's okay.  We can simply admit 
that we're not quite doing the right thing and get around to fixing it 
later.

But once the fix has been made, why would anyone want it to be optional? 
  Is it so rare an event that the performance hit isn't worth the 
catastrophe which might occur if we don't properly return an error?