On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:50:56 +0400 Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:07:58AM -0700, Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:56:59 +0400 > > Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:43:50AM +0200, Jari Sundell ([EMAIL > > > PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > Actually, I didn't miss that, it is an orthogonal issue. A timespec > > > > timeout parameter for the syscall does not imply the use of timespec > > > > in any timer event, etc. Nor is there any timespec timer in kqueue's > > > > struct kevent, which is the only (interface related) thing that will > > > > be exposed. > > > > > > void * in structure exported to userspace is forbidden. > > > long in syscall requires wrapper in per-arch code (although that > > > workaround _is_ there, it does not mean that broken interface should > > > be used). > > > poll uses millisecods - it is perfectly ok. > > > > I wonder whether designing-in a millisecond granularity is the right thing > > to do. If in a few years the kernel is running tickless with high-res clock > > interrupt sources, that might look a bit lumpy. > > > > Switching it to a __u64 nanosecond counter would be basically free on > > 64-bit machines, and not very expensive on 32-bit, no? > > I can put nanoseconds as timer interval too (with aligned_u64 as David > mentioned), and put it for timeout value too - 64 bit nanosecods ends up > with 58 years, probably enough. > Structures with u64 a really not so good idea. > OK. One could do u32 seconds/u32 nsecs, but a simple aligned_u64 will be better for 64-bit machines, and OK for 32-bit. - 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