Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:21:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: gibbs@plutotech.com, nate@mt.sri.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new timeout routines Message-ID: <199709250021.RAA03046@usr03.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199709241713.LAA12839@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Sep 24, 97 11:13:27 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > So you assume that regardless of what pointers the client gives you, > > even if they give you the same pair twice without an intervening > > expiration or untimeout call, that there will be no collisions in > > the hash table? > > How did the original code in untimeout() determine what to pull off the > table? Obviously there is enough information in the untimeout() call to > uniquely determine which entry to use, and that same information was > used in timeout(), so we must be able to build a perfect hash function. A given process can only block on one timeout address at a time; as long as it has a pointer to the curproc, it can traverse the entire list looking for the curproc and be sure that that's the one. It can do the same thing (and not fail) in the case of multiple calls. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709250021.RAA03046>