From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] don't ignore fd events when an alarm is due Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:14:12 +0100 Message-ID: <47949AA4.9070000@netfilter.org> References: <20080121082752.27612.82519.stgit@rabbit.intern.cm-ag> <20080121082958.27612.37473.stgit@rabbit.intern.cm-ag> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Max Kellermann Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:42159 "EHLO us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751684AbYAUNOV (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:14:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080121082958.27612.37473.stgit@rabbit.intern.cm-ag> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Max Kellermann wrote: > also, pass &next_alarm to __run() only if there is an alarm; eliminate > the "timeout" parameter; the alarm functions get_next_alarm_run() and > do_alarm_run() return an timeval pointer instead of a boolean. Hm, this patch makes my CPU suck up after the first alarm run. -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers