Michael,
On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 15:12 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Davide, Andrew, Linus, et al.
>
> At the start of this thread
> (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/581115 ), I proposed 4
> alternatives to Davide's original timerfd API. Based on the feedback in
> that thread (and one or two earlier comments):
>
> Let's dismiss option (a), since it is an unlovely multiplexing interface.
>
> Option (b) seems a viable. The most notable concern was from Thomas
> Gleixner, that we might end up duplicating code from the POSIX timers API
> within the timerfd API -- some eventual refactoring might mitigate this
> problem.
It should be possible to use the timerfd syscalls as wrappers for the
posix timer implementation and add the discussed SIGEV_TIMERFD only
internally in the kernel to signal the posix timer code new delivery
mechanism.
tglx
-
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]
