Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: futex and timeouts | Date | Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:49:04 +1100 |
| |
In message <20020315060829.L4836@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> you write: > 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, > FUTEX_UP, NULL);
My bad. There was a mistake in the patch (ie. I didn't actually do this).
OTOH, shades of fcntl! Syscalls are not "wasted": one for every fundamental operation makes *sense*. If I were doing it with timeouts from scratch, I'd definitely have done two syscalls. As it is, the "op" arg gives us a chance for more overloading in future.
Hope that clarifies, Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
| |