Re: epoll_ctl and const correctness

[nicolas sitbon <nicolas.sitbon@gmail.com>]

You don't teach me anything, I know that, the fact is the
documentation is incomplete, so rather saying that, please answer my
questions. For the moment, only the documenation and the prototype of
epoll are buggy.

2009/3/25 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>:
> nicolas sitbon wrote:
>>
>> valgrind confirms this
>> behaviour, so am I wrong?
>
> That doesn't prove very much.  Unlike usermode code, Valgrind doesn't
> instrument the kernel, so it computes the side-effects of kernel operations
> by parsing the syscall stream and simulating the effect.  (That is to say,
> it strengthens your argument somewhat, but valgrind's handling of this
> syscall could be buggy.)
>
>>  or the good prototype is
>>
>> int epoll_ctl(int epfd, int op, int fd, struct epoll_event const *event);
>>
>
> Putting "const" first is conventional.
>
>   J
>