From owner-freebsd-current Wed Sep 24 12:07:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA18904 for current-outgoing; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (SRI-56K-FR.mt.net [206.127.65.42]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA18896 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02537; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:07:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA13477; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:07:28 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:07:28 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199709241907.NAA13477@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Julian Elischer Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" , Nate Williams , Terry Lambert , bde@zeta.org.au, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new timeout routines In-Reply-To: <3429630C.167EB0E7@whistle.com> References: <199709241651.KAA23972@pluto.plutotech.com> <3429630C.167EB0E7@whistle.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > so what happens if I call untimeout twice? It does the right thing, since we you 'untimeout the function pointer is NULL'd out. > there is an assumption in a lot of code that untimeout is idempotent > (did I get that right?). It can be called whenever you are recovering > from unknown situations with the sure knowledge that the appropriate > timeout will be removed. According to Justin, the old only removed a timeout with the same function/arguements, which may/may not have been the right one, if multiple timeouts with the same function/arguements were created. Nate