Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:37:14 +0100 | Subject | Re: epoll_ctl and const correctness | From | nicolas sitbon <> |
| |
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 <jeremy@goop.org>: > 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 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/
| |