On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > It is completely possible to do what you describe without special
> > syscall parameters.
>
> First of all, I don't see how this is efficiently possible. The mask
> might change from call to call.
And you can add/remove signal events using existing kevent api between
calls.
> Second, hasn't it sunk in that inventing new ways to pass parameters is
> bad? Programmers don't want to learn new ways for every new interface.
> Reuse is good!
And creating special cases for usual events is bad.
There is unified way to deal with events in kevent -
add/remove/modify/wait on them, signals are just usual events.
> This applies to the signal mask here.
>
> But there is another parameter falling into that category and I meant to
> mention it before: the timeout value. All other calls except poll and
> especially all modern interfaces use a timespec pointer. This is the
> way times are kept in userland code. Don't try to force people to do
> something else.
>
> Using a timespec also has the advantage that we can add an absolute
> timeout value mode (optional) instead of the relative timeout value.
>
> In this context, we should/must be able to specify which clock the
> timeout is for (not as part of the wait call, but another control
> operation perhaps). It's important to distinguish between
> CLOCK_REALTIME and CLOCK_MONOTONE. Both have their use.
I think you wanted to say, that 'all event mechanism except the most
commonly used poll/select/epoll use timespec'.
I designed it to be similar to poll(), it is really good interface.
Nature of the waiting is to wait for some time, so I put there that
'some time'.
> --
> ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
>
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
