[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Synchronous signal delivery..
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:01:53 +0000
Jamie Lokier <> wrote:

| Davide Libenzi wrote:
| >
| > Hmm ... using read() you'll lose the timeout capability, that IMHO is
| > pretty nice.
| Very good point.
| Timeouts could be events too - probably a good idea as they can then
| be absolute, relative, attached to different system clocks (monotonic
| vs. timeofday). I think the POSIX timer work is like that.

Hi Davide, Jamie-

Yep. And there are people (plural :) who would still like to get
that patch accepted into 2.5 too....

| It seems like a good idea to be able to attach one timeout event in
| the same system call as the event_read call itself - because it is
| _so_ common to vary the expiry time every time.
| Then again, it is also extremely common to write this:
| gettimeofday(...)
| // calculate time until next application timer expires.
| // Note also race condition here, if we're preempted.
| read_events(..., next_app_time - timeofday)
| // we need to know the current time.
| gettimeofday(...)
| So perhaps the current select/poll/epoll timeout method is not
| particularly optimal as it is?

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 13:33    [W:0.052 / U:13.932 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site