Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:47:23 +0300 | From | Evgeniy Polyakov <> | Subject | Re: [take24 0/6] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism. |
| |
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 02:38:50PM +0300, Michael Tokarev (mjt@tls.msk.ru) wrote: > Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> I think we have lived with relative timeouts for so long, it would be > >> unusual to change now. select(2), poll(2), epoll_wait(2) all take > >> relative timeouts. > > > > I'm not talking about always using absolute timeouts. > > > > I'm saying the timeout parameter should be a struct timespec* and then > > the flags word could have a flag meaning "this is an absolute timeout". > > I.e., enable both uses,, even make relative timeouts the default. This > > is what the modern POSIX interfaces do, too, see clock_nanosleep. > > > Can't the argument be something like u64 instead of struct timespec, > regardless of this discussion (relative vs absolute)?
It is right now :)
> /mjt
-- Evgeniy Polyakov - 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/
| |