Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753513AbWKVLtH (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2006 06:49:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753506AbWKVLtG (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2006 06:49:06 -0500 Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:26786 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753250AbWKVLtB (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2006 06:49:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:47:23 +0300 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Michael Tokarev Cc: Ulrich Drepper , Jeff Garzik , David Miller , Andrew Morton , netdev , Zach Brown , Christoph Hellwig , Chase Venters , Johann Borck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro Subject: Re: [take24 0/6] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism. Message-ID: <20061122114723.GA15957@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <11630606361046@2ka.mipt.ru> <45564EA5.6020607@redhat.com> <20061113105458.GA8182@2ka.mipt.ru> <4560F07B.10608@redhat.com> <20061120082500.GA25467@2ka.mipt.ru> <4562102B.5010503@redhat.com> <45622228.80803@garzik.org> <456223AC.5080400@redhat.com> <456436CA.7050809@tls.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <456436CA.7050809@tls.msk.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.7.5 (2ka.mipt.ru [0.0.0.0]); Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:47:24 +0300 (MSK) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1093 Lines: 29 On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 02:38:50PM +0300, Michael Tokarev (mjt@tls.msk.ru) wrote: > Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> I think we have lived with relative timeouts for so long, it would be > >> unusual to change now. select(2), poll(2), epoll_wait(2) all take > >> relative timeouts. > > > > I'm not talking about always using absolute timeouts. > > > > I'm saying the timeout parameter should be a struct timespec* and then > > the flags word could have a flag meaning "this is an absolute timeout". > > I.e., enable both uses,, even make relative timeouts the default. This > > is what the modern POSIX interfaces do, too, see clock_nanosleep. > > > Can't the argument be something like u64 instead of struct timespec, > regardless of this discussion (relative vs absolute)? It is right now :) > /mjt -- Evgeniy Polyakov - 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/