[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49691C75.2000606@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:08:53 -0500
From: Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@...hat.com>
To: Scott James Remnant <scott@...onical.com>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 16:14 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>
>
>> From the perspective of waitfd, the only difference between WNOHANG and
>> O_NONBLOCK is which argument you put the flags in. The API should only
>> support one or the other, but internally they would imply the same thing.
>>
>>
> Well, you get O_NONBLOCK for free by having a file descriptor; and you
> can't turn off people trying to turn it on/off with fcntl() - so you may
> as well just use that, no? :-)
>
> Scott
>
Its purely an api question. We could easily take the WNOHANG flag and
just unset it when we get it and set O_NONBLOCK instead. We need
O_CLOEXEC anyway though, and the only reason to do it would be to get
rid of the O_ options and take only one type of flag (that and just a
little more waitid consistency).
--CJD
--
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