> Can you elaborate on this? I'm not disputing it, but I'd like to
> understand what difference things make if the kmalloc isnt taken.
> My understanding is that with the existing code, if n=0, we kmalloc 0
> bytes, fail, and goto out_nofds. With my patch, if n=0, we goto out_nofds.
> (Or am I missing something obvious here?)
> The 'We ought to optimise the n=0 case - it is used enough.'
> kind of made me scratch my head a little too..
int usleep(unsigned usec)
struct timeval tval;
tval.tv_sec = 0;
tval.tv_usec = usec;
return select( 0, NULL, NULL, NULL, &tval );
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST