> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:03:56 +0200 Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/