Re: [patch 2/2] timerfd extend clockid support

[Michael Kerrisk]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
>> > and I did not have even the time to peek
>> > into the core timer code to see if the usage of other timer types in
>> > eventfd would create problems. That's why I asked Thomas if they'd behave
>> > differently from an hrtimer caller POV.
>> > I'll try to take a look by myself today or tomorrow.
>>
>> Okay -- hopefully my test program may be useful (even if it is not
>> itself fully tested yet, it's patterned after a similar test program I
>> wrote fot the POSIX timers API, so it should mostly work).
>
> Answer was pretty easy once you look at the code :)
> Timerfd uses core hrtimer functions, and clockids different from the ones
> timerfd already handles, fall into the CPU-timers domain. Domain that is
> not handled by hrtimer.
> Changes to timerfd to support CPU-based timers are really deep (more than
> changes, is a total rewrite). not only to timerfd, but also to CPU-based
> timers to deliver notification by means different than signals.
> Given the amount of code change, and given that a posix-timers->signalfd
> bridge could solve the problem, I'm not going even close to suggest such a
> change.

Davide,

Will you nevertheless push the patch that adds the EINVAL flags checks?

Cheers,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git
man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html
Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html
--
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/