Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Sep 2007 09:14:12 -0700 (PDT) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Revised timerfd() interface |
| |
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Davide,
A Michael!
> > > As I think about this more, I see more problems with > > > your argument. timerfd needs the ability to get and > > > get-while-setting just as much as the earlier APIs. > > > Consider a library that creates a timerfd file descriptor that > > > is handed off to an application: that library may want > > > to modify the timer settings without having to create a > > > new file descriptor (the app mey not be able to be told about > > > the new fd). Your argument just doesn't hold, AFAICS. > > > > Such hypotethical library, in case it really wanted to offer such > > functionality, could simply return an handle instead of the raw fd, and > > take care of all that stuff in userspace. > > Did I miss something? Is it not the case that as soon as the > library returns a handle, rather than an fd, then the whole > advantage of timerfd() (being able to select/poll/epoll on > the timer as well as other fds) is lost?
Why? The handle would simply be a little struct where the timerfd fd is stored, and a XXX_getfd() would return it. So my point is, I doubt such functionalities are really needed, and I also argue that the kernel is the best place for such wrapper code to go.
- Davide
- 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/
| |