Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:22:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:22:06 -0500 Received: from bjl1.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:15232 "EHLO bjl1.jlokier.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:22:05 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 04:34:05 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Synchronous signal delivery.. Message-ID: <20030215043405.GB5438@bjl1.jlokier.co.uk> References: <20030214024046.GA18214@bjl1.jlokier.co.uk> <20030215010153.GE4333@bjl1.jlokier.co.uk> <20030215020838.GH4333@bjl1.jlokier.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 967 Lines: 21 Davide Libenzi wrote: > Many ( many ) times, when you're going to wait for events, you want to > specify a maximum wait time ( reletive time ) and not an absolute time. > This is how ppl think about "timeouts". Different beast is the absolute > timer, that you can easily achieve with POSIX timers ( TIMER_ABSTIME ) and > a sigfd() dropped inside an event retrieval interface. Agreed, both interfaces are useful. You see that epoll_wait is optimised for one in particular though. Curiously. I'll probably continue to use a calculated relative timeout instead of using a POSIX timer, as the overhead of setting up and tearing down the latter is more system calls which we still like to avoid if it's not hard. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/