From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
Subject: Re: [take24 0/6] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism.
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:38:50 +0300
Message-ID: <456436CA.7050809@tls.msk.ru>
References: <11630606361046@2ka.mipt.ru> <45564EA5.6020607@redhat.com> <20061113105458.GA8182@2ka.mipt.ru> <4560F07B.10608@redhat.com> <20061120082500.GA25467@2ka.mipt.ru> <4562102B.5010503@redhat.com> <45622228.80803@garzik.org> <456223AC.5080400@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@oracle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Chase Venters <chase.venters@clientec.com>,
	Johann Borck <johann.borck@densedata.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro <aviro@redhat.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from hobbit.corpit.ru ([81.13.94.6]:23120 "EHLO hobbit.corpit.ru")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752790AbWKVLi7 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 22 Nov 2006 06:38:59 -0500
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <456223AC.5080400@redhat.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> I think we have lived with relative timeouts for so long, it would be
>> unusual to change now.  select(2), poll(2), epoll_wait(2) all take
>> relative timeouts.
> 
> I'm not talking about always using absolute timeouts.
> 
> I'm saying the timeout parameter should be a struct timespec* and then
> the flags word could have a flag meaning "this is an absolute timeout".
>  I.e., enable both uses,, even make relative timeouts the default. This
> is what the modern POSIX interfaces do, too, see clock_nanosleep.


Can't the argument be something like u64 instead of struct timespec,
regardless of this discussion (relative vs absolute)?

Compare:

 void mysleep(int msec) {
   struct timeval tv;
   tv.tv_sec = msec/1000;
   tv.tv_usec = msec%1000;
   select(0,0,0,0,&tv);
 }

with

  void mysleep(int msec) {
    poll(0, 0, msec*SOME_TIME_SCALE_VALUE);
  }

That to say: struct time{spec,val,whatever} is more difficult to use than
plain numbers.

But yes... existing struct timespec has an advantage of being already existed.
Oh well.

/mjt