lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 25 Jul 2002 16:32:39 +1000
FromRusty Russell <>
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2010