| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
a) none of the callers even looks at inode or file returned by anon_inode_getfd()
b) any caller that would try to look at those would be racy, since by the time
it returns we might have raced with close() from another thread and that
file would be pining for fjords.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
|
Every file should include the headers containing the prototypes for its global
functions (in this case for sys_timerfd_*()).
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
This is the new timerfd API as it is implemented by the following patch:
int timerfd_create(int clockid, int flags);
int timerfd_settime(int ufd, int flags,
const struct itimerspec *utmr,
struct itimerspec *otmr);
int timerfd_gettime(int ufd, struct itimerspec *otmr);
The timerfd_create() API creates an un-programmed timerfd fd. The "clockid"
parameter can be either CLOCK_MONOTONIC or CLOCK_REALTIME.
The timerfd_settime() API give new settings by the timerfd fd, by optionally
retrieving the previous expiration time (in case the "otmr" parameter is not
NULL).
The time value specified in "utmr" is absolute, if the TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME bit
is set in the "flags" parameter. Otherwise it's a relative time.
The timerfd_gettime() API returns the next expiration time of the timer, or
{0, 0} if the timerfd has not been set yet.
Like the previous timerfd API implementation, read(2) and poll(2) are
supported (with the same interface). Here's a simple test program I used to
exercise the new timerfd APIs:
http://www.xmailserver.org/timerfd-test2.c
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style cleanups]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix ia64 build]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix m68k build]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix mips build]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix alpha, arm, blackfin, cris, m68k, s390, sparc and sparc64 builds]
[heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com: fix s390]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix powerpc build]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix sparc64 more]
Signed-off-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@gmx.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@gmx.net>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
Davi fixed a missing cast in the __put_user(), that was making timerfd
return a single byte instead of the full value.
Talking with Michael about the timerfd man page, we think it'd be better to
use a u64 for the returned value, to align it with the eventfd
implementation.
This is an ABI change. The timerfd code is new in 2.6.22 and if we merge this
into 2.6.23 then we should also merge it into 2.6.22.x. That will leave a few
early 2.6.22 kernels out in the wild which might misbehave when a future
timerfd-enabled glibc is run on them.
mtk says: The difference would be that read() will only return 4 bytes, while
the application will expect 8. If the application is checking the size of
returned value, as it should, then it will be able to detect the problem (it
could even be sophisticated enough to know that if this is a 4-byte return,
then it is running on an old 2.6.22 kernel). If the application is not
checking the return from read(), then its 8-byte buffer will not be filled --
the contents of the last 4 bytes will be undefined, so the u64 value as a
whole will be junk.
Signed-off-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@gmx.net>
Cc: Davi Arnaut <davi@haxent.com.br>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
The timerfd was using the unlocked waitqueue operations, but it was
using a different lock, so poll_wait() would race with it.
This makes timerfd directly use the waitqueue lock.
Signed-off-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
This patch introduces a new system call for timers events delivered though
file descriptors. This allows timer event to be used with standard POSIX
poll(2), select(2) and read(2). As a consequence of supporting the Linux
f_op->poll subsystem, they can be used with epoll(2) too.
The system call is defined as:
int timerfd(int ufd, int clockid, int flags, const struct itimerspec *utmr);
The "ufd" parameter allows for re-use (re-programming) of an existing timerfd
w/out going through the close/open cycle (same as signalfd). If "ufd" is -1,
s new file descriptor will be created, otherwise the existing "ufd" will be
re-programmed.
The "clockid" parameter is either CLOCK_MONOTONIC or CLOCK_REALTIME. The time
specified in the "utmr->it_value" parameter is the expiry time for the timer.
If the TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME flag is set in "flags", this is an absolute time,
otherwise it's a relative time.
If the time specified in the "utmr->it_interval" is not zero (.tv_sec == 0,
tv_nsec == 0), this is the period at which the following ticks should be
generated.
The "utmr->it_interval" should be set to zero if only one tick is requested.
Setting the "utmr->it_value" to zero will disable the timer, or will create a
timerfd without the timer enabled.
The function returns the new (or same, in case "ufd" is a valid timerfd
descriptor) file, or -1 in case of error.
As stated before, the timerfd file descriptor supports poll(2), select(2) and
epoll(2). When a timer event happened on the timerfd, a POLLIN mask will be
returned.
The read(2) call can be used, and it will return a u32 variable holding the
number of "ticks" that happened on the interface since the last call to
read(2). The read(2) call supportes the O_NONBLOCK flag too, and EAGAIN will
be returned if no ticks happened.
A quick test program, shows timerfd working correctly on my amd64 box:
http://www.xmailserver.org/timerfd-test.c
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: add sys_timerfd to sys_ni.c]
Signed-off-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
