On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 07:16:40AM +0100, Robert de Vries wrote:
> > No, setitimer is an existing system call. Removing it would break backward
> > compatibility. So: yes, it is possible, and: no, it isn't done.
>
> The system call is only the tip of the iceberg. What I mean is that
> internally setitimer should be implemented using the same code than
> the posix timers, if setitimer is really a subset of said posix
> timers. No need to duplicate code.
The setitimer supports two more types of timers: ITIMER_VIRTUAL and
ITIMER_PROF. They are special timers. Only ITIMER_REAL can be
reimplemented by Posix timers. The amount of code for that is negligible.
So there is no real reason to remove it.
Most of the code is shared anyway so there is no obvious gain.
Robert
-- Robert de Vries rhdv@rhdv.cistron.nl- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:23 EST