linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Deferrable timers support for timerfd API

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 4 Feb 2014 17:10:24 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Alexey Perevalov <a.perevalov@...sung.com>
cc:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	anton@...msg.org, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cw00.choi@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Deferrable timers support for timerfd API

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Alexey Perevalov wrote:
> On 01/21/2014 11:12 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> > 
> > Thomas: Any thought here? Should we be trying to unify the timerfd flags
> > and the posix timer flags (specifically things like TIMER_CANCEL_ON_SET,
> > which is currently timerfd-only)?  Should a deferrable flag be added to
> > the hrtimer core or left to the timer wheel?

The timer cancel on set was added only to timerfd because timerfd is a
non posix interface and we are halfways free to add stuff to
it. Adding extra flags to the real posix timer interfaces is a
different story.

What's the rationale for a deferrable flag for user space interfaces?

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/