[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification

    On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:

    > I cannot produce (top of my head) any other POSIX API calls that
    > allow you to specify another clock source, but they are there,
    > somewhere. If I am to introduce a new API, I better make it
    > flexible enough so that other subsystems can use it for more stuff
    > other than...

    So we have to deal at kernel level with every broken timeout specification
    that comes along?

    > >Why is not sufficient to just add a relative/absolute version,
    > >which convert the time at entry to kernel time?
    > ...adding more versions that add complexity and duplicate
    > code in many different places (user-to-kernel copy, syscall entry
    > points, timespec validation). And the minute you add a clock_id
    > you can steal some bits for specifying absolute/relative (or vice
    > versa), so it is almost a win-win situarion.

    What "more versions" are you talking about? When you convert a user time
    to kernel time you can automatically validate it and later you can use
    standard kernel APIs, so you don't have to add even more API bloat.

    bye, Roman
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-09-01 01:55    [W:0.019 / U:44.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site