Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:00:04 +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: <11587.1164837604@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:50:51 EST." <200611291650.51782.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200611291650.51782.jhb@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin writes: >> I want it marked up directly in the flags passed which kind of behaviour >> the code wants. > >Hmm, I guess that depends on what you consider tick_t to be. I was thinking >of it as an abstract type for a deadline, and that absolute and relative are >sort of like subclasses of that. I see tick_t only as an opaque measure of time and would prefer to not have modal bits stuck into it because I fear that will make it larger than 32 bits. -- 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?11587.1164837604>