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

    2009/3/25 nicolas sitbon <nicolas.sitbon@gmail.com>:
    > 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-27 10:47    [W:0.021 / U:59.448 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site