Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:32:39 +1000 | | From | Rusty Russell <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 'select' failure or signal should not update timeout |
| |
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:48:10 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> wrote:
> The thing is, we cannot change existing select semantics, and the > question is whether what most soft-realtime wants is actually select, or > whether people really want a "waittimeofday()".
NOT waittimeofday. You need a *new* measure which can't be set forwards or back if you want this to be sane. pthreads has absolute timeouts (eg. pthread_cond_timedwait), but they suck IRL for this reason.
Of course, doesn't need any correlation with absolute time, it could be a "microseconds since boot" kind of thing.
Rusty. -- there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |