Re: [patch 2/3] new timerfd API - wire the new timerfd API to the x86 family

Davide Libenzi
2007-09-24T19:56:41Z

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:

> Hi Davide,
>
> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >> Is it perhaps not better to group the three syscalls contiguously with
> >> respect to syscall numbers? The old timerfd slot can be re-used for some
> >> other syscall later.
> >
> > There's no problem if they're not contiguous.
>
> I realise there is no problem, in a technical sense. But it strikes me as
> more aesthetic to make related syscalls numerically contiguous. Thus, we
> see such as the following in the kernel source
>
> #define __NR_epoll_create 254
> #define __NR_epoll_ctl 255
> #define __NR_epoll_wait 256
>
> and
>
> #define __NR_timer_create 259
> #define __NR_timer_settime (__NR_timer_create+1)
> #define __NR_timer_gettime (__NR_timer_create+2)
> #define __NR_timer_getoverrun (__NR_timer_create+3)
> #define __NR_timer_delete (__NR_timer_create+4)
>
> and
>
> #define __NR_inotify_init 291
> #define __NR_inotify_add_watch 292
> #define __NR_inotify_rm_watch 293
>
> > Holes, unless filled
> > immediately, need to be remembered to be filled.
>
> Well, in the past it seems they do get filled soon enough though. There's
> fair odds that you'll be the one to fill it with the next syscall you write
> ;-).

You have to talk to arch mantainers. I do not care. I simply provided the
x86 hooks because I tested on x86.

- Davide