Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:45:46 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a proposed callout API Message-ID: <10814.1164829546@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:46:00 EST." <200611291346.01246.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200611291346.01246.jhb@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin writes: >Different APIs would be fine. IIRC, that's how Darwin does it. With the >tick_t idea, you could easily have: > >tick_t relative_wakeup(ulong nsec) >tick_t absolute_wakeup(struct timeval *tv) (or something else, etc.) I really do not want to encode the rel/abs aspect in the tick_t. I want it marked up directly in the flags passed which kind of behaviour the code wants. >walltime timeouts (such as for TCP as Poul-Henning mentioned). I like tick_t, >I just want to make sure we change foosleep() to use it as well, and wanted to >raise the idea of relative vs absolute deadlines. Agreed, foosleep() should take tick_t as well. I propose you and I write up the new API in detail and then present that document here on arch@ at a latter date. Is that OK with you ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10814.1164829546>