![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:07:58AM -0700, Andrew Morton (akpm@osdl.org) wrote: > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:56:59 +0400 > Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:43:50AM +0200, Jari Sundell (sundell.software@gmail.com) wrote: > > > Actually, I didn't miss that, it is an orthogonal issue. A timespec > > > timeout parameter for the syscall does not imply the use of timespec > > > in any timer event, etc. Nor is there any timespec timer in kqueue's > > > struct kevent, which is the only (interface related) thing that will > > > be exposed. > > > > void * in structure exported to userspace is forbidden. > > long in syscall requires wrapper in per-arch code (although that > > workaround _is_ there, it does not mean that broken interface should > > be used). > > poll uses millisecods - it is perfectly ok. > > I wonder whether designing-in a millisecond granularity is the right thing > to do. If in a few years the kernel is running tickless with high-res clock > interrupt sources, that might look a bit lumpy. > > Switching it to a __u64 nanosecond counter would be basically free on > 64-bit machines, and not very expensive on 32-bit, no? Let's then place there a structure with 64bit seconds and nanoseconds, similar to timspec, but without longs there. What do you think? -- Evgeniy Polyakov - 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: 2006-08-23 07:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||