Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Yes, it kinda makes sense. Question to Uli: would you put ppoll() into > glibc as GNU extension? Of course. I would rather not add pselect() and deprecate select() than not adding ppoll(). In fact, we just discussed a similar issue in the POSIX base working group. Due to the limitations select() might indeed get the axe in a future revision. -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- References:
- Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: jnf <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: bert hubert <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Dynamic tick for x86 version 050609-2
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC] Observations on x86 process.c
- Previous by thread: Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- Next by thread: Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- Index(es):