Re: [PATCH] eventfd, signalfd, timerfd, epoll_create w/flags
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Sun Apr 27 2008 - 19:32:10 EST
- Next message: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: [PATCH] eventfd, signalfd, timerfd, epoll_create w/flags"
- Previous message: David Miller: "Re: [patch] x86, voyager: fix ioremap_nocache()"
- In reply to: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: [PATCH] eventfd, signalfd, timerfd, epoll_create w/flags"
- Next in thread: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: [PATCH] eventfd, signalfd, timerfd, epoll_create w/flags"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
I used the number at the end for syscalls which aren't visible at
userlevel. There they are useful indicating the number of arguments.
At userlevel I personally find it less than optimal but I'd have no
problem changing it to epoll_create2.
But surely these will have to be exposed to the user level somehow?
There will need to be an API for this to the end user, and historically
we have tried to keep the kernel interface as close to that as is practical.
Here you seem to suddenly be saying that there is going to be a
completely different interface? Why?
-hpa
--
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/
- Next message: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: [PATCH] eventfd, signalfd, timerfd, epoll_create w/flags"
- Previous message: David Miller: "Re: [patch] x86, voyager: fix ioremap_nocache()"
- In reply to: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: [PATCH] eventfd, signalfd, timerfd, epoll_create w/flags"
- Next in thread: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: [PATCH] eventfd, signalfd, timerfd, epoll_create w/flags"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]