[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: epoll_ctl and const correctness
    You don't teach me anything, I know that, the fact is the
    documentation is incomplete, so rather saying that, please answer my
    questions. For the moment, only the documenation and the prototype of
    epoll are buggy.

    2009/3/25 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <>:
    > nicolas sitbon wrote:
    >> valgrind confirms this
    >> behaviour, so am I wrong?
    > That doesn't prove very much.  Unlike usermode code, Valgrind doesn't
    > instrument the kernel, so it computes the side-effects of kernel operations
    > by parsing the syscall stream and simulating the effect.  (That is to say,
    > it strengthens your argument somewhat, but valgrind's handling of this
    > syscall could be buggy.)
    >>  or the good prototype is
    >> int epoll_ctl(int epfd, int op, int fd, struct epoll_event const *event);
    > Putting "const" first is conventional.
    >   J
    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: 2009-03-25 22:39    [W:0.028 / U:49.768 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site