Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:38:01 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: gibbs@plutotech.com, julian@whistle.com Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG, nate@mt.sri.com, tlambert@primenet.com Subject: Re: new timeout routines Message-ID: <199709250838.SAA06295@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>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. This was an invalid assumption, since timeout() was only (almost) nilpotent (calling it N+1 times has the same effect as calling it N times for some value of N, provided there are no calls to timeout() mixed with the calls to untimeout()). Now it is (almost) idempotent (N = 1 in the above), provided the cookies are managed properly. Correct cookie management corresponds to using the correct value of N in the old version. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709250838.SAA06295>