Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756145AbXIEMMj (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:12:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753995AbXIEMMc (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:12:32 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.181]:64403 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754012AbXIEMMb (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:12:31 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=L/6oJWkPkMFQveAez5UTk/q+PCmmE+fQTMJyycCLCQfsQ88fiTD7L873fF1GRu7VbK8KBh+36u2QeZcEUqhe4T+yduzucQfCSml+3fSZKqCpIWnweroIS6ICM42RrPioTLjvY4YfFYSVdhvUvGexMDkK31lXuStY/1eJVJ0vrG4= From: Denys Vlasenko To: Davide Libenzi Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revised timerfd() interface Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 13:12:21 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Andrew Morton , Michael Kerrisk , rdunlap@xenotime.net, tglx@linutronix.de, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , Ulrich Drepper , stable@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, jengelh@computergmbh.de, corbet@lwn.net References: <20070825064114.107820@gmx.net> <20070904011800.762523a4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200709051312.21873.vda.linux@googlemail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2237 Lines: 52 On Tuesday 04 September 2007 16:25, Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:03:56 +0200 Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > Davide, > > > > > > >> Davide -- ping! Can you please offer your comments about this change, and > > > >> also thoughts on Jon's and my comments about a more radical API change > > > >> later in this thread. > > > > > > > > IMO the complexity of the resulting API (and resulting patch), and the ABI > > > > change, is not justified by the added value. > > > > > > Neither of the proposed APIs (either my multiplexed version of timerfd() > > > or Jon's/my idea of using three system calls (like POSIX timers), or > > > the notion of timerfd() integrated with POSIX timers) is more > > > complicated than the existing POSIX timers API. > > > > > > The ABI change doesn't really matter, since timerfd() was broken in 2.6.22 > > > anyway. > > > > > > Both previous APIs provided the features I have described provide: > > > > > > * the ability to fetch the old timer value when applying > > > a new setting > > > > > > * the ability to non-destructively fetch the amount of time remaining > > > on a timer. > > > > > > This is clearly useful for timers -- but you have not explained why > > > you think this is not necessary for timerfd timers. > > > > > > > > I'd have thought that the existing stuff would be near-useless without the > > capabilities which you describe? > > Useless like it'd be a motorcycle w/out a cup-holder :) > Seriously, the ability to get the previous values from "something" could > have a meaning if this something is a shared global resource (like signals > for example). In the timerfd case this makes little sense, since you can > create as many timerfd as you like and you do not need to share a single > one by changing/restoring the original context. I think at least ability to read remaining time from a timerfd is needed. -- vda - 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/