RE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification

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



On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:

> I cannot produce (top of my head) any other POSIX API calls that
> allow you to specify another clock source, but they are there,
> somewhere. If I am to introduce a new API, I better make it 
> flexible enough so that other subsystems can use it for more stuff
> other than...

So we have to deal at kernel level with every broken timeout specification 
that comes along?

> >Why is not sufficient to just add a relative/absolute version,
> >which convert the time at entry to kernel time?
> ...adding more versions that add complexity and duplicate
> code in many different places (user-to-kernel copy, syscall entry 
> points, timespec validation). And the minute you add a clock_id
> you can steal some bits for specifying absolute/relative (or vice
> versa), so it is almost a win-win situarion.

What "more versions" are you talking about? When you convert a user time 
to kernel time you can automatically validate it and later you can use 
standard kernel APIs, so you don't have to add even more API bloat.

bye, Roman
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

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