[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:0.020 / U:5.316 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site