[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: futex and timeouts
Followup to:  <>
By author: Joel Becker <>
In newsgroup:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 04:39:50PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Yep, sorry, my mistake. I suggest make it a relative "struct timespec
> > *" (more futureproof that timeval). It would make sense to split the
> > interface into futex_down and futex_up syuscalls, since futex_up
> > doesn't need a timeout arg, but I haven't for the moment.
> Why waste a syscall? The user is going to be using a library
> wrapper. They don't have to know that futex_up() calls sys_futex(futex,

Syscalls are (by and large) cheap. Extra dispatches, however, hurt.

<> at work, <> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." <>
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: 2005-03-22 13:21    [W:0.069 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site