lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
    Hi,

    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 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: 2005-09-01 01:55    [W:0.023 / U:0.892 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site