[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: epoll_ctl and const correctness
Please, can anyone answer me, I need a response.

2009/3/25 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 <>:
>> 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: 2009-03-27 10:47    [W:0.064 / U:4.392 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site