From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754275Ab1ASXyz (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:54:55 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:50210 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753288Ab1ASXyz (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:54:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:54:51 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Shawn Bohrer Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fix compiler warning and optimize the non-blocking path Message-Id: <20110119155451.5a2b7636.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20110119142942.e4898861.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:49:09 -0800 (PST) Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:43:45 -0800 (PST) > > Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > > > +/** > > > + * ep_poll - Retrieves ready events, and delivers them to the caller supplied > > > + * event buffer. > > > + * > > > + * @ep: Pointer to the eventpoll context. > > > + * @events: Pointer to the userspace buffer where the ready events should be > > > + * stored. > > > + * @maxevents: Size (in terms of number of events) of the caller event buffer. > > > + * @timeout: Maximum timeout for the ready events fetch operation, in > > > + * milliseconds. If the @timeout is zero, the function will not block, > > > + * while if the @timeout is less than zero, the function will block > > > + * until at least one event has been retrieved (or an error > > > + * occurred). > > > > Ah, that's what timeout<0 means. > > > > My `man epoll_wait' says "a timeout of -1 makes epoll_wait() wait > > indefinitely", whereas the implementation accepts any -ve value. > > > > So we lost the ability to later make -[2..MAX_INT] meaningful in some > > new way. Oh well. > > I guess we can throw a -EINVAL if timeout <-1, if you prefer ... > Too late!