lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-22 12:53    [W:0.070 / U:2.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site