Re: timerfd redux

2007-09-13 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:13:59 +0200 "Michael Kerrisk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew, > > > > 3. possible solutions > > > > I don't think we'll have this settled and coded in time for 2.6.23. So I > > think the prudent thing to do is to push this back to 2.6.24 and not offer > > sys_timerfd

Re: timerfd redux

2007-09-13 Thread Michael Kerrisk
Andrew, > > 3. possible solutions > > I don't think we'll have this settled and coded in time for 2.6.23. So I > think the prudent thing to do is to push this back to 2.6.24 and not offer > sys_timerfd() in 2.6.23. Did you want a patch to remove the syscall number for now, or will you do that?

Re: timerfd redux

2007-09-12 Thread Michael Kerrisk
> > [Was: Re: [PATCH] Revised timerfd() interface] > > > > > Michael, could you please refresh our memories with a brief, > > > from-scratch summary of what the current interface is, followed > > > by a summary of what you believe to be the shortcomings to be? > > > > Andrew, > > > > I'll break

Re: timerfd redux

2007-09-12 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:32:01 +0200 "Michael Kerrisk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Was: Re: [PATCH] Revised timerfd() interface] > > > Michael, could you please refresh our memories with a brief, > > from-scratch summary of what the current interface is, followed > > by a summary of what you beli

timerfd redux

2007-09-05 Thread Michael Kerrisk
[Was: Re: [PATCH] Revised timerfd() interface] > Michael, could you please refresh our memories with a brief, > from-scratch summary of what the current interface is, followed > by a summary of what you believe to be the shortcomings to be? Andrew, I'll break this up into parts: 1. the existin