Re: [patch 6/9] signalfd/timerfd v1 - timerfd core ...

[Nicholas Miell]

On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 13:44 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> > 
> > That's what the sigevent structure is for -- to describe how events
> > should be signaled to userspace, whether by signal delivery, thread
> > creation, or queuing to event completion ports. If if you think
> > extending it would be bad, I can show you the line in POSIX where it
> > encourages the contrary.
> 
> I'm sorry, but by pointing to the POSIX timer stuff, you're just making 
> your argument weaker.
> 
> POSIX timers are a horrible crock and over-designed to be a union of 
> everything that has ever been done. Nasty. We had tons of bugs in the 
> original setup because they were so damn nasty.
> 

Care to elaborate on why they're a horrible crock?

And are the bugs fixed? If so, why replace them? They work now.

> I'd rather look at just about *anything* else for good design than from 
> some of the abortions that are posix-timers.
> 
> 		Linus

-- 
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx>

-
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/