On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 18:30 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote: > On 05/06/2013 18:21, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 13:34 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote: > > > > > > This is probably too big to be inlined, and nonblock should be a bool > > > > It would also make sense to give end_time as a parameter, so that the > > polling() code could really give a end_time for the whole duration of > > poll(). > > > > (You then should test can_poll_ll(end_time) _before_ call to > > ndo_ll_poll()) > > how would you handle a nonblocking operation in that case? > I guess if we have a socket option, then we don't need to handle none > blocking any diffrent, since the user specified exactly how much time to > waste polling. right?
If the thread already spent 50us in the poll() system call, it for sure should not call any ndo_ll_poll(). This makes no more sense at this point. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
