From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757089AbXKWMkI (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:40:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755801AbXKWMj5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:39:57 -0500 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]:9157 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755578AbXKWMj4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:39:56 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=LqE7G6S5PuLo6wxhVXO6H74z7fjLFvF06vw2EgXOzIu1HccSrajmswzxfHQkwOC+oEg/P+jzvJfDGzvhkighaSSpc8+amsKa2EOuqeQnxRZijij5783Iy5HkIlbEaw4WqdVgMXuoNzIUODMEYRX0xVBjaQOJX82cyYPNVShMQ2g= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:39:55 +0100 From: "Michael Kerrisk" To: "Andrew Morton" Subject: Re: Where is the new timerfd? Cc: "Davide Libenzi" , lkml In-Reply-To: <20071122173437.e74890a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071122162430.48f55995.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071122173437.e74890a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/23/07, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:35:38 -0800 (PST) Davide Libenzi > 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