On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:07:58AM -0700, Andrew Morton ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:56:59 +0400
> Evgeniy Polyakov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:43:50AM +0200, Jari Sundell ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > Actually, I didn't miss that, it is an orthogonal issue. A timespec
> > > timeout parameter for the syscall does not imply the use of timespec
> > > in any timer event, etc. Nor is there any timespec timer in kqueue's
> > > struct kevent, which is the only (interface related) thing that will
> > > be exposed.
> >
> > void * in structure exported to userspace is forbidden.
> > long in syscall requires wrapper in per-arch code (although that
> > workaround _is_ there, it does not mean that broken interface should
> > be used).
> > poll uses millisecods - it is perfectly ok.
>
> I wonder whether designing-in a millisecond granularity is the right thing
> to do. If in a few years the kernel is running tickless with high-res clock
> interrupt sources, that might look a bit lumpy.
>
> Switching it to a __u64 nanosecond counter would be basically free on
> 64-bit machines, and not very expensive on 32-bit, no?
Let's then place there a structure with 64bit seconds and nanoseconds,
similar to timspec, but without longs there.
What do you think?
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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]
