[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061122114723.GA15957@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:47:23 +0300
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Chase Venters <chase.venters@...entec.com>,
Johann Borck <johann.borck@...sedata.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Viro <aviro@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [take24 0/6] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism.
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 02:38:50PM +0300, Michael Tokarev (mjt@....msk.ru) wrote:
> Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> I think we have lived with relative timeouts for so long, it would be
> >> unusual to change now. select(2), poll(2), epoll_wait(2) all take
> >> relative timeouts.
> >
> > I'm not talking about always using absolute timeouts.
> >
> > I'm saying the timeout parameter should be a struct timespec* and then
> > the flags word could have a flag meaning "this is an absolute timeout".
> > I.e., enable both uses,, even make relative timeouts the default. This
> > is what the modern POSIX interfaces do, too, see clock_nanosleep.
>
>
> Can't the argument be something like u64 instead of struct timespec,
> regardless of this discussion (relative vs absolute)?
It is right now :)
> /mjt
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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