[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060823000758.5ebed7dd.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:07:58 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc: Jari Sundell <sundell.software@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
nmiell@...cast.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
drepper@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, zach.brown@...cle.com,
hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [take12 0/3] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism.
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:56:59 +0400
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:43:50AM +0200, Jari Sundell (sundell.software@...il.com) wrote:
> > Actually, I didn't miss that, it is an orthogonal issue. A timespec
> > timeout parameter for the syscall does not imply the use of timespec
> > in any timer event, etc. Nor is there any timespec timer in kqueue's
> > struct kevent, which is the only (interface related) thing that will
> > be exposed.
>
> void * in structure exported to userspace is forbidden.
> long in syscall requires wrapper in per-arch code (although that
> workaround _is_ there, it does not mean that broken interface should
> be used).
> poll uses millisecods - it is perfectly ok.
I wonder whether designing-in a millisecond granularity is the right thing
to do. If in a few years the kernel is running tickless with high-res clock
interrupt sources, that might look a bit lumpy.
Switching it to a __u64 nanosecond counter would be basically free on
64-bit machines, and not very expensive on 32-bit, no?
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists