Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

Casey Dahlin
2009-01-10T22:25:42Z

Scott James Remnant wrote:
> That's pretty neat, much nicer than what we had before. So what about
> waitfd() [I think I've slightly changed Casey's API here, or he changed
> my proposed one <g>]?
>
I think you might have changed the argument order slighly, but other
than that, counting the corrections I've made from feedback here, its
about the same.

--CJD