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

[Evgeniy Polyakov]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 02:38:50PM +0300, Michael Tokarev (mjt@xxxxxxxxxx) 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/