Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 03:18:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 03:18:02 -0400 Received: from samba.sourceforge.net ([198.186.203.85]:19357 "HELO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 03:18:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:32:39 +1000 From: Rusty Russell To: Linus Torvalds Cc: lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk, ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 'select' failure or signal should not update timeout Message-Id: <20020725163239.6c6e5ed6.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> In-Reply-To: References: <20020724144433.B7192@kushida.apsleyroad.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; powerpc-debian-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 992 Lines: 23 On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:48:10 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote: > The thing is, we cannot change existing select semantics, and the > question is whether what most soft-realtime wants is actually select, or > whether people really want a "waittimeofday()". NOT waittimeofday. You need a *new* measure which can't be set forwards or back if you want this to be sane. pthreads has absolute timeouts (eg. pthread_cond_timedwait), but they suck IRL for this reason. Of course, doesn't need any correlation with absolute time, it could be a "microseconds since boot" kind of thing. Rusty. -- there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy - 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/