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

[Paul Eggert]

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?