From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:08:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:08:40 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:53766 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:08:30 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:08:29 +0000 From: Joel Becker To: Rusty Russell Cc: frankeh@watson.ibm.com, matthew@hairy.beasts.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: futex and timeouts Message-ID: <20020315060829.L4836@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Becker , Rusty Russell , frankeh@watson.ibm.com, matthew@hairy.beasts.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20020314151846.EDCBF3FE07@smtp.linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from rusty@rustcorp.com.au on Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 04:39:50PM +1100 X-Burt-Line: Trees are cool. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 04:39:50PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > Yep, sorry, my mistake. I suggest make it a relative "struct timespec > *" (more futureproof that timeval). It would make sense to split the > interface into futex_down and futex_up syuscalls, since futex_up > doesn't need a timeout arg, but I haven't for the moment. Why waste a syscall? The user is going to be using a library wrapper. They don't have to know that futex_up() calls sys_futex(futex, FUTEX_UP, NULL); Joel -- Life's Little Instruction Book #182 "Be romantic." http://www.jlbec.org/ jlbec@evilplan.org