Re: [patch 2/4] new timerfd API v2 - new timerfd API

[Michael Kerrisk]

Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 
>> One quick question:
>>
>>> Like the previous timerfd API implementation, read(2) and poll(2) are supported
>>> (with the same interface).
>> Looking at that interface, it appears that a process doing a read() on a
>> timerfd with no timer set will block for a very long time.  It's an
>> obvious "don't do that" situation, but perhaps we could help an
>> occasional developer get a clue by returning something like -EINVAL when
>> the timer has not been set?
> 
> That is the same as you try to read once more after an expired timer. You 
> won't wake up until the next timer event will show up. That is, after at 
> most TP time for periodic timers, or after the time  the next 
> timerfd_settime() will setup.
> I'd like to keep the "timerfd not set yet" and the "timerfd already 
> expired and not re-armed" acting the same way. That is, wait till next 
> event happen (unless O_NONBLOCK of course).

Yes.  The timer_settime() and read() might for example be done in separate
threads, and it would make sense for the read() to block until the timer
has been armed.

Cheers,

Michael


-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/