On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 02:38:50PM +0300, Michael Tokarev ([email protected]) wrote:
> Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> I think we have lived with relative timeouts for so long, it would be
> >> unusual to change now. select(2), poll(2), epoll_wait(2) all take
> >> relative timeouts.
> >
> > I'm not talking about always using absolute timeouts.
> >
> > I'm saying the timeout parameter should be a struct timespec* and then
> > the flags word could have a flag meaning "this is an absolute timeout".
> > I.e., enable both uses,, even make relative timeouts the default. This
> > is what the modern POSIX interfaces do, too, see clock_nanosleep.
>
>
> Can't the argument be something like u64 instead of struct timespec,
> regardless of this discussion (relative vs absolute)?
It is right now :)
> /mjt
--
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]
