David Woodhouse wrote: > Eep -- I hadn't noticed that difference. Will update patch accordingly. And change it to expect a 64bit value I hope... > The other documented difference (other than the signal mask bit) is that > pselect() is documented not to modify the timeout parameter. I'm not > sure whether I should preserve that difference, or not. As long as there is a configuration where the timeout value is not modified, it doesn't matter. That is the case for select() using a personality switch. -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- 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]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
- Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] Observations on x86 process.c
- Next by Date: Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- Previous by thread: Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- Next by thread: Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- Index(es):
 |