Where is the new timerfd?

Where is the new timerfd?

[Michael Kerrisk]

Hey Davide,

Where is the new timerfd API.  In 2.6.24-rc3, I see the *old* API...

Cheers,

Michael

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Davide Libenzi]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:

> Hey Davide,
> 
> Where is the new timerfd API.  In 2.6.24-rc3, I see the *old* API...

Maybe Andrew stuffed the turkey with it? :) It was there. I remeber it was 
merged. Some screw up reverted it?


- Davide

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Michael Kerrisk]

On Nov 22, 2007 6:34 PM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
> > Hey Davide,
> >
> > Where is the new timerfd API.  In 2.6.24-rc3, I see the *old* API...
>
> Maybe Andrew stuffed the turkey with it? :) It was there. I remeber it was
> merged. Some screw up reverted it?

t looks that way.

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Davide Libenzi]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:

> On Nov 22, 2007 6:34 PM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Davide,
> > >
> > > Where is the new timerfd API.  In 2.6.24-rc3, I see the *old* API...
> >
> > Maybe Andrew stuffed the turkey with it? :) It was there. I remeber it was
> > merged. Some screw up reverted it?
> 
> t looks that way.

I'm looking at the log now. It never went in actually. Andrew-san, what 
happened?



- Davide

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:46:13 -0800 (PST) Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> 
> > On Nov 22, 2007 6:34 PM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Davide,
> > > >
> > > > Where is the new timerfd API.  In 2.6.24-rc3, I see the *old* API...
> > >
> > > Maybe Andrew stuffed the turkey with it? :) It was there. I remeber it was
> > > merged. Some screw up reverted it?
> > 
> > t looks that way.
> 
> I'm looking at the log now. It never went in actually. Andrew-san, what 
> happened?
> 

Last I recall, we removed the API for 2.6.23 because we intended to do a
different interface for 2.6.24.

But I don't recall seeing any timerfd patches in maybe a month.

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Davide Libenzi]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:46:13 -0800 (PST) Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > 
> > > On Nov 22, 2007 6:34 PM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Davide,
> > > > >
> > > > > Where is the new timerfd API.  In 2.6.24-rc3, I see the *old* API...
> > > >
> > > > Maybe Andrew stuffed the turkey with it? :) It was there. I remeber it was
> > > > merged. Some screw up reverted it?
> > > 
> > > t looks that way.
> > 
> > I'm looking at the log now. It never went in actually. Andrew-san, what 
> > happened?
> > 
> 
> Last I recall, we removed the API for 2.6.23 because we intended to do a
> different interface for 2.6.24.
> 
> But I don't recall seeing any timerfd patches in maybe a month.

Was sent on Sep 23, Subject: new timerfd API
Do you want me to repost?



- Davide

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:35:38 -0800 (PST) Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:46:13 -0800 (PST) Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Nov 22, 2007 6:34 PM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Davide,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where is the new timerfd API.  In 2.6.24-rc3, I see the *old* API...
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe Andrew stuffed the turkey with it? :) It was there. I remeber it was
> > > > > merged. Some screw up reverted it?
> > > > 
> > > > t looks that way.
> > > 
> > > I'm looking at the log now. It never went in actually. Andrew-san, what 
> > > happened?
> > > 
> > 
> > Last I recall, we removed the API for 2.6.23 because we intended to do a
> > different interface for 2.6.24.
> > 
> > But I don't recall seeing any timerfd patches in maybe a month.
> 
> Was sent on Sep 23, Subject: new timerfd API

Half of us weren't born then ;)

> Do you want me to repost?

yes please.

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Michael Kerrisk]

On 11/23/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:35:38 -0800 (PST) Davide Libenzi
> <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
> > > Last I recall, we removed the API for 2.6.23 because we intended to do a
> > > different interface for 2.6.24.
> > >
> > > But I don't recall seeing any timerfd patches in maybe a month.
> >
> > Was sent on Sep 23, Subject: new timerfd API
>
> Half of us weren't born then ;)
>
> > Do you want me to repost?
>
> yes please.

I suppose this means that timerfd will only go in for 2.6.25.  I don't
have a problem with that, but we better make sure that the existing
timerfd in 2.6.24 is still disabled.  (Andrew had a one liner for
that, but I haven't checked if it's in place.)

Cheers,

Michael

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:39:55 +0100 "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 11/23/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:35:38 -0800 (PST) Davide Libenzi
> > <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Last I recall, we removed the API for 2.6.23 because we intended to do a
> > > > different interface for 2.6.24.
> > > >
> > > > But I don't recall seeing any timerfd patches in maybe a month.
> > >
> > > Was sent on Sep 23, Subject: new timerfd API
> >
> > Half of us weren't born then ;)
> >
> > > Do you want me to repost?
> >
> > yes please.
> 
> I suppose this means that timerfd will only go in for 2.6.25.  I don't
> have a problem with that, but we better make sure that the existing
> timerfd in 2.6.24 is still disabled.  (Andrew had a one liner for
> that, but I haven't checked if it's in place.)
> 

I have no timerfd patches here.

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Davide Libenzi]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > I suppose this means that timerfd will only go in for 2.6.25.  I don't
> > have a problem with that, but we better make sure that the existing
> > timerfd in 2.6.24 is still disabled.  (Andrew had a one liner for
> > that, but I haven't checked if it's in place.)
> > 
> 
> I have no timerfd patches here.

Yes, it's disabled, and yes, I'll repost today ...


- Davide

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Ulrich Drepper]

On Nov 23, 2007 9:29 AM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> Yes, it's disabled, and yes, I'll repost today ...

I haven't seen the patch and don't feel like searching.  So I say it
here: please mak sure you add a flags parameter to the system call
itself (instead of adding it on as for eventfd and signalfd).  We need
to be able to use O_CLOEXEC some way or another.

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Michael Kerrisk]

On Nov 23, 2007 7:38 PM, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2007 9:29 AM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> > Yes, it's disabled, and yes, I'll repost today ...
>
> I haven't seen the patch and don't feel like searching.  So I say it
> here: please mak sure you add a flags parameter to the system call
> itself (instead of adding it on as for eventfd and signalfd).  We need
> to be able to use O_CLOEXEC some way or another.

Seems reasonable to add this for timer_create() (though unfortunate
that it is now too late to do the same for eventfd() and signalfd()).
Davide, what do you think?

Cheers,

Michael

Re: Where is the new timerfd?

[Davide Libenzi]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:

> On Nov 23, 2007 9:29 AM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> > Yes, it's disabled, and yes, I'll repost today ...
> 
> I haven't seen the patch and don't feel like searching.  So I say it
> here: please mak sure you add a flags parameter to the system call
> itself (instead of adding it on as for eventfd and signalfd).  We need
> to be able to use O_CLOEXEC some way or another.

I'm more then OK about adding a flags parameter. If it was for me, I'd add 
it even to eventfd and signalfd. I asked Linus if he was OK about adding 
the flags parameter to all. He didn't reply, and I read that as "no".



- Davide