Re: [take24 0/6] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism.

[Michael Tokarev]

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)?

Compare:

 void mysleep(int msec) {
   struct timeval tv;
   tv.tv_sec = msec/1000;
   tv.tv_usec = msec%1000;
   select(0,0,0,0,&tv);
 }

with

  void mysleep(int msec) {
    poll(0, 0, msec*SOME_TIME_SCALE_VALUE);
  }

That to say: struct time{spec,val,whatever} is more difficult to use than
plain numbers.

But yes... existing struct timespec has an advantage of being already existed.
Oh well.

/mjt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/