Messages in this thread | | | From | Hubertus Franke <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: futex and timeouts | Date | Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:16:02 -0500 |
| |
On Friday 15 March 2002 01:08 am, Joel Becker wrote: > 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
I agree with that, only for the reason that we are getting scarce on syscall nubmers. Is 256-delta the max ? On the other hand, it requires to always push 2 more arguments (operand and useless parameter).
One thing to consider is that many don't want to use libraries. They want to inline, which would result only in a few instruction.
What I would like to see is an interface that lets me pass optional parameters to the syscall interface, so I can call with different number of parameters.
-- -- Hubertus Franke (frankeh@watson.ibm.com) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |