[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:0.021 / U:8.752 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site