On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 5:01 PM Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:13 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 9:13 PM Willem de Bruijn > > <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:45 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion. > > I do have an initial patchset. As expected, it does involve quite a > bit of code churn to pass slack through the callers. I'll take a look > at your suggestion to simplify it. > > As is, the patchset is not ready to send to the list for possible > merge. In the meantime, I did push the patchset to github at > https://github.com/wdebruij/linux/commits/epoll-nstimeo-1 . I can send > a version marked RFC to the list if that's easier. Looks all good to me, just two small things I noticed that you can address before sending the new series: * The div_u64_rem() in ep_timeout_to_timespec() looks wrong, as you are actually dividing a 'long' that does not need it. * In "epoll: wire up syscall epoll_pwait2", the alpha syscall has the wrong number, it should be 110 higher than the others, not 109. > Btw, the other change, to convert epoll implementation to timespec64 > before adding the syscall, equally adds some code churn compared to > patch v3. But perhaps the end state is cleaner and more consistent. Right, that's what I meant. If it causes too much churn, don't worry about it it. Arndd
