> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:03:56 +0200 Michael Kerrisk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Davide,
>
> >> Davide -- ping! Can you please offer your comments about this change, and
> >> also thoughts on Jon's and my comments about a more radical API change
> >> later in this thread.
> >
> > IMO the complexity of the resulting API (and resulting patch), and the ABI
> > change, is not justified by the added value.
>
> Neither of the proposed APIs (either my multiplexed version of timerfd()
> or Jon's/my idea of using three system calls (like POSIX timers), or
> the notion of timerfd() integrated with POSIX timers) is more
> complicated than the existing POSIX timers API.
>
> The ABI change doesn't really matter, since timerfd() was broken in 2.6.22
> anyway.
>
> Both previous APIs provided the features I have described provide:
>
> * the ability to fetch the old timer value when applying
> a new setting
>
> * the ability to non-destructively fetch the amount of time remaining
> on a timer.
>
> This is clearly useful for timers -- but you have not explained why
> you think this is not necessary for timerfd timers.
<wakes up>
I'd have thought that the existing stuff would be near-useless without the
capabilities which you describe?
-
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]
