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

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

 



Hi,

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  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