On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Davide,
A Michael!
> > > As I think about this more, I see more problems with
> > > your argument. timerfd needs the ability to get and
> > > get-while-setting just as much as the earlier APIs.
> > > Consider a library that creates a timerfd file descriptor that
> > > is handed off to an application: that library may want
> > > to modify the timer settings without having to create a
> > > new file descriptor (the app mey not be able to be told about
> > > the new fd). Your argument just doesn't hold, AFAICS.
> >
> > Such hypotethical library, in case it really wanted to offer such
> > functionality, could simply return an handle instead of the raw fd, and
> > take care of all that stuff in userspace.
>
> Did I miss something? Is it not the case that as soon as the
> library returns a handle, rather than an fd, then the whole
> advantage of timerfd() (being able to select/poll/epoll on
> the timer as well as other fds) is lost?
Why? The handle would simply be a little struct where the timerfd fd is
stored, and a XXX_getfd() would return it.
So my point is, I doubt such functionalities are really needed, and I also
argue that the kernel is the best place for such wrapper code to go.
- Davide
-
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]
