Re: high-res-timers start code.

On Monday 23 April 2001 22:43, George Anzinger wrote: > "Robert H. de Vries" wrote: > > On Monday 23 April 2001 19:45, you wrote: > > > By the way, is the user land stuff the same for all "arch"s? > > > > Not if you plan to handle the CPU cycle

[PATCH] POSIX timers for 2.4.1

Hi Linus, Please accept this patch for inclusion. The impact on the kernel is negligible and it makes the kernel a bit more POSIX feature complete. I have received good feedback from people who have used the patch and I have used it a lot myself without any problems. This patch should not impac

[PATCH] POSIX timers for 2.4.0

Hi Linus, Please accept this patch for inclusion. The impact on the kernel is negligible and it makes the kernel a bit more POSIX feature complete. I have received good feedback from people who have used the patch and I have used it a lot myself without any problems. This patch should not impac

[ANN] POSIX timer patch for 2.4.0

Hi Linus, This patch adds the POSIX timer system calls to the kernel. The patch has been in a stable state for some time now. It has been tested on intel hardware only (SMP and UP). It also has been in use by myself and some other people for a year or so, which gives me some confidence that the

Re: [PATCH] Fix queued SIGIO

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Julian Anastasov wrote: >Hello, > >On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Robert H. de Vries wrote: >> It would be better to change SI_SIGIO in all the >> include/asm-*/siginfo.h files from -5 to __SI_CODE(__SI_SIGIO, -5) >> __SI_SIGIO would become (6 << 16).

Re: [PATCH] Fix queued SIGIO

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote: >> The problem is really that SI_SIGIO is negative, but it should be positive >> to make SI_FROMUSER return false on it. >> >> Changing it would unfortunately break binary compatibility. This patch > It would be better to change SI_SIGIO in all the include/as