-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Friday 03 September 2004 15:07, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / åèèæ wrote:
> I agree with the basic principle; it is very similar to mine.
Yes, I saw a patch on lkml a while a go (possibly yours?) that used a
> However, it is too complicated isn't it?
I considered the option of removing the capability of the programmer asking
for a certain interval, and instead having all the variables checked every
> I would do per-"table" registration (instead of per-variable one);
I considered that option, but then decided to make the watch64 system generic
enough so that it could be used from anywhere in the kernel. Is my idea of
having a kernel-wide subsystem like this too heavy-weight?
> watch64_getval() seems very ugly to me...
How so? Is it the multiplicity of "if (!st)"?
bad pun of the week: the formula 1 control computer suffered from a race
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----