Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:03:28 +1300 | Subject | Re: [patch 2/2] timerfd extend clockid support | From | Michael Kerrisk <> |
| |
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > >> > and I did not have even the time to peek >> > into the core timer code to see if the usage of other timer types in >> > eventfd would create problems. That's why I asked Thomas if they'd behave >> > differently from an hrtimer caller POV. >> > I'll try to take a look by myself today or tomorrow. >> >> Okay -- hopefully my test program may be useful (even if it is not >> itself fully tested yet, it's patterned after a similar test program I >> wrote fot the POSIX timers API, so it should mostly work). > > Answer was pretty easy once you look at the code :) > Timerfd uses core hrtimer functions, and clockids different from the ones > timerfd already handles, fall into the CPU-timers domain. Domain that is > not handled by hrtimer. > Changes to timerfd to support CPU-based timers are really deep (more than > changes, is a total rewrite). not only to timerfd, but also to CPU-based > timers to deliver notification by means different than signals. > Given the amount of code change, and given that a posix-timers->signalfd > bridge could solve the problem, I'm not going even close to suggest such a > change.
Davide,
Will you nevertheless push the patch that adds the EINVAL flags checks?
Cheers,
Michael
-- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html
| |