Re: [PATCH] pepoll_wait ...

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

To: Michael Tokarev <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pepoll_wait ...
From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:07:22 -0800
Cc: Davide Libenzi <[email protected]>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <[email protected]>, David Miller <[email protected]>, Andrew Morton <[email protected]>, David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060112)

Michael Tokarev wrote:
> How about epoll_pwait() instead?  It looks more appropriate, for
> my eyes anyway.  (Just a name, nothing more)

It's just a name but I have thought along the same lines. It's just more
pleasing.

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

References:
- [PATCH] pepoll_wait ...
  - From: Davide Libenzi <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] pepoll_wait ...
  - From: Michael Tokarev <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: RFC [patch 00/34] PID Virtualization Overview
Next by Date: Re: 2.6.16-rc1-mm1
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] pepoll_wait ...
Next by thread: userspace filesystem Vs kernelspace filesystem
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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