Re: [RFC] A more general timeout specification

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:15:54PM -0700, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:

> The main reason why we are asking for this is that timeouts in POSIX
> calls are always specified in an absolute form. Because most system
> calls take it in a relative form, glibc has to call the kernel twice

Also, it is quite evil for a library to internally convert a user-specified
end time into relative time .. this causes end-time drift.

Joe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux