Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] epoll: Introduce new syscall "epoll_mod_wait"

[Fam Zheng <famz-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, 01/20 11:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20 2015, Fam Zheng <famz-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> > DESCRIPTION
> >
> >        The epoll_mod_wait() system call can be seen as an enhanced combination
> >        of several epoll_ctl(2) calls, which are followed by an epoll_pwait(2)
> >        call. It is superior in two cases:
> >        
> >        1) When epoll_ctl(2) are followed by epoll_wait(2), using epoll_mod_wait
> >        will save context switches between user mode and kernel mode;
> >        
> >        2) When you need higher precision than microsecond for wait timeout.
> 
> You probably want to say millisecond.

Yes, you see that I just can't make this right. :)

> 
> >            struct epoll_mod_cmd {
> [...]
> >            };
> 
> 
> >            struct epoll_wait_spec {
> [...]
> >            } EPOLL_PACKED;
> 
> Either both or none of these should mention that EPOLL_PACKED is in fact
> part of the actual definition. The changelog for 3/6 sorta mentions
> that it's not really needed for epoll_mod_cmd. Why is it necessary for
> either struct?

Yeah. it's probably not really necessary.

> 
> > RETURN VALUE
> >
> >        When successful, epoll_mod_wait() returns the number of file
> >        descriptors ready for the requested I/O, or zero if no file descriptor
> >        became ready during the requested timeout milliseconds.
> 
> And here, it doesn't make sense to mention a unit, since the new timeout
> is given using struct timespec (this was the whole point, right?).

Right!

Thanks,
Fam