Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 03:00:55 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: gibbs@plutotech.com, nate@mt.sri.com Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, current@freebsd.org, julian@whistle.com, tlambert@primenet.com Subject: Re: new timeout routines Message-ID: <199709241700.DAA04019@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> No-one said this wasn't possible. It just takes additional space and >> makes untimeout's running time non-deterministic. I decided it was >> an unacceptable tradeoff. > >How do you figure? untimeout is now the same as it was before, or >aren't the cookies based on a hash table? Hash lookup is non-deterministic, since searching is required to handlle collisions . This wouldn't be important, since hashing is usually fast, except for the small point about untimeout() being called from interrupt handlers where we would prefer deterministic behaviour. Note that hash lookup is not required for timeout() since we don't care about duplicates. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709241700.DAA04019>