On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> One quick question:
>
> > Like the previous timerfd API implementation, read(2) and poll(2) are supported
> > (with the same interface).
>
> Looking at that interface, it appears that a process doing a read() on a
> timerfd with no timer set will block for a very long time. It's an
> obvious "don't do that" situation, but perhaps we could help an
> occasional developer get a clue by returning something like -EINVAL when
> the timer has not been set?
That is the same as you try to read once more after an expired timer. You
won't wake up until the next timer event will show up. That is, after at
most TP time for periodic timers, or after the time the next
timerfd_settime() will setup.
I'd like to keep the "timerfd not set yet" and the "timerfd already
expired and not re-armed" acting the same way. That is, wait till next
event happen (unless O_NONBLOCK of course).
- 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]
