From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751078AbXCJVo2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:44:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751060AbXCJVo2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:44:28 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:56566 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750819AbXCJVo1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:44:27 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:44:24 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Nicholas Miell cc: Davide Libenzi , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch 6/9] signalfd/timerfd v1 - timerfd core ... In-Reply-To: <1173560473.2958.23.camel@entropy> Message-ID: References: <1173508384.3108.1.camel@entropy> <1173509019.3108.4.camel@entropy> <1173510568.3108.17.camel@entropy> <1173556374.2958.12.camel@entropy> <1173560473.2958.23.camel@entropy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote: > > That's what the sigevent structure is for -- to describe how events > should be signaled to userspace, whether by signal delivery, thread > creation, or queuing to event completion ports. If if you think > extending it would be bad, I can show you the line in POSIX where it > encourages the contrary. I'm sorry, but by pointing to the POSIX timer stuff, you're just making your argument weaker. POSIX timers are a horrible crock and over-designed to be a union of everything that has ever been done. Nasty. We had tons of bugs in the original setup because they were so damn nasty. I'd rather look at just about *anything* else for good design than from some of the abortions that are posix-timers. Linus