Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756910AbXHGG44 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Aug 2007 02:56:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753837AbXHGG4s (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Aug 2007 02:56:48 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:38486 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753436AbXHGG4r (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Aug 2007 02:56:47 -0400 X-Authenticated: #24879014 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18IVGQGMPEI6DdS0Sp8LpwTDGwgZuRB/uToK8xfNg PecHaFODefv+0p Message-ID: <46B81745.9010409@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:55:01 +0200 From: Michael Kerrisk User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20060911) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: lkml , Linux Torvalds , Davide Libenzi , drepper@redhat.com, stable@kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: Problems with timerfd() References: <46A44B7D.3030700@gmx.net> <20070722233826.20efa6e5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <46A7940B.4070901@gmx.net> <20070725151252.8d2d5141.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070725151252.8d2d5141.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2161 Lines: 57 Andrew, I'm working on the changes to timerfd(), but must admit I am struggling to understand some of the kernel code for working with userspace timers (e.g., in kernel/posix-timers.c). Can you suggest anyone who could provide assistance? Cheers, Michael Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:18:51 +0200 > Michael Kerrisk wrote: > >> Andrew, >> >> Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:32:29 +0200 Michael Kerrisk wrote: >>> >>>> Andrew, >>>> >>>> The timerfd() syscall went into 2.6.22. While writing the man page for >>>> this syscall I've found some notable limitations of the interface, and I am >>>> wondering whether you and Linus would consider having this interface fixed >>>> for 2.6.23. >>>> >>>> On the one hand, these fixes would be an ABI change, which is of course >>>> bad. (However, as noted below, you have already accepted one of the ABI >>>> changes that I suggested into -mm, after Davide submitted a patch.) >>>> >>>> On the other hand, the interface has not yet made its way into a glibc >>>> release, and the change will not break applications. (The 2.6.22 version >>>> of the interface would just be "broken".) >>> I think if the need is sufficient we can do this: fix it in 2.6.23 and in >>> 2.6.22.x. That means that there will be a few broken-on-new-glibc kernels >>> out in the wild, but very few I suspect. >> So I'm still not quite clear. Can I take it from your statement above that >> the proposed ABI changes would be admissible, as long as Davide is okay >> with them? >> > > yup, I'll send that diff into Linus and -stable and see what happens. > -- Michael Kerrisk maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 Want to help with man page maintenance? Grab the latest tarball at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/manpages/ read the HOWTOHELP file and grep the source files for 'FIXME'. - 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/