Re: [PATCH] Revised timerfd() interface

[Andrew Morton]

> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:03:56 +0200 Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Davide,
> 
> >> Davide -- ping!  Can you please offer your comments about this change, and
> >> also thoughts on Jon's and my comments about a more radical API change
> >> later  in this thread.
> > 
> > IMO the complexity of the resulting API (and resulting patch), and the ABI 
> > change, is not justified by the added value.
> 
> Neither of the proposed APIs (either my multiplexed version of timerfd()
> or Jon's/my idea of using three system calls (like POSIX timers), or
> the notion of timerfd() integrated with POSIX timers) is more
> complicated than the existing POSIX timers API.
> 
> The ABI change doesn't really matter, since timerfd() was broken in 2.6.22
> anyway.
> 
> Both previous APIs provided the features I have described provide:
> 
> * the ability to fetch the old timer value when applying
>   a new setting
> 
> * the ability to non-destructively fetch the amount of time remaining
>   on a timer.
> 
> This is clearly useful for timers -- but you have not explained why
> you think this is not necessary for timerfd timers.

<wakes up>

I'd have thought that the existing stuff would be near-useless without the
capabilities which you describe?


-
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/