[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709180936480.22956@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@....net>
cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, geoff@...re.org.uk,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, vda.linux@...glemail.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: RFC: A revised timerfd API
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> The four designs are:
>
> a) A multiplexing timerfd() system call.
> b) Creating three syscalls analogous to the POSIX timers API (i.e.,
> timerfd_create/timerfd_settime/timerfd_gettime).
> c) Creating a simplified timerfd() system call that is integrated
> with the POSIX timers API.
> d) Extending the POSIX timers API to support the timerfd concept.
If you really want to shoot yourself in your foot, I'd pick bullet B.
Bullet A makes me sea-sick, and bullets C and D, well, let's leave POSIX
APIs being *POSIX* APIs.
Once you remove all the "ifs" and "elses" that resulted from your previous
bullet A multiplexing implementation, timerfd_gettime and timerfd_settime
should result in being pretty slick.
I still think we could have survived w/out all this done inside the
kernel though.
- Davide
-
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