> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:55:01 +0200 Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm working on the changes to timerfd(), but must admit I am struggling
> > to understand some of the kernel code for working with userspace timers
> > (e.g., in kernel/posix-timers.c).
>
> Join the club.
Ahh
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:55:01 +0200 Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm working on the changes to timerfd(), but must admit I am struggling to
> understand some of the kernel code for working with userspace timers (e.g.,
> in kernel/posix-timers.c).
Join the club.
> Can you suggest
Andrew,
I'm working on the changes to timerfd(), but must admit I am struggling to
understand some of the kernel code for working with userspace timers (e.g.,
in kernel/posix-timers.c). Can you suggest anyone who could provide
assistance?
Cheers,
Michael
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:18:51 +0200
Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:32:29 +0200 Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew,
> >>
> >> The timerfd() syscall went into 2.6.22. While writing the man page f
Andrew,
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:32:29 +0200 Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> The timerfd() syscall went into 2.6.22. While writing the man page for
>> this syscall I've found some notable limitations of the interface, and I am
>> wondering wheth
> > > (This is the same sort of thing we already have to deal with in
> > > certain situations, such as network stat counters on 32 bit
> > > platforms.)
> >
> > But userspace can't deal with the condition accurately,
>
> Okay, perhaps this is where I'm missing something? If userspace wakes
> up o
On 7/24/07, Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/22/07, Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The value returned by read(2)ing from a timerfd file descriptor is
> > the
> > number of timer overruns. In 2.6.22, this value is 4 bytes, limiting
> > the overrun count to 2^32.
Ray,
> On 7/22/07, Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Problem 1
> > -
> >
> > The value returned by read(2)ing from a timerfd file descriptor is
> > the
> > number of timer overruns. In 2.6.22, this value is 4 bytes, limiting
> > the overrun count to 2^32. Consider an appli
Hey there Michael, all,
On 7/22/07, Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Problem 1
-
The value returned by read(2)ing from a timerfd file descriptor is the
number of timer overruns. In 2.6.22, this value is 4 bytes, limiting the
overrun count to 2^32. Consider an application wh
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:38:26 -0700 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Davide has already submitted a patch to you to make read() from a timerfd
>>> file descriptor return an 8 byte integer, and I understand it to have been
>>> accepted into -mm.
>> argh. Nobod
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:38:26 -0700 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Davide has already submitted a patch to you to make read() from a timerfd
> > file descriptor return an 8 byte integer, and I understand it to have been
> > accepted into -mm.
>
> argh. Nobody told me it was an ABI c
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:32:29 +0200 Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> The timerfd() syscall went into 2.6.22. While writing the man page for
> this syscall I've found some notable limitations of the interface, and I am
> wondering whether you and Linus would consider having
Andrew,
The timerfd() syscall went into 2.6.22. While writing the man page for
this syscall I've found some notable limitations of the interface, and I am
wondering whether you and Linus would consider having this interface fixed
for 2.6.23.
On the one hand, these fixes would be an ABI change, w
13 matches
Mail list logo
