[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1316110862.2492.10.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:21:02 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sys_poll(): fix function definition/negative timeout
values
Le jeudi 15 septembre 2011 à 20:12 +0200, Andi Kleen a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:05:17PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le jeudi 15 septembre 2011 à 10:47 -0700, Andi Kleen a écrit :
> > > Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de> writes:
> > >
> > > > Fix negative timeout values for x86 userland on x86_64 kernels.
> > > > Align sys_poll() definition to glibc's definition.
> > >
> > > Nack. Please write a compat wrapper that sign extends.
> > >
> >
> > Why ?
>
> Because we shouldn't change existing interfaces and there could
> be valid reasons on 64bit for really long delays.
I disagree.
Existing interface and POSIX mandates "int delay"
The kernel part of the contract was fine when we supported 32bit only
machines, by chance, because sizeof(int) == sizeof(long).
If you want more than 31 bits delay, then we need a new interface, and
this new interface must also work on 32bit arches (sort of poll64())
--
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