Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:40:48 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r237202 - in projects/calloutng/sys: kern sys Message-ID: <CAJ-FndA%2BzK5seKuVhx%2BQsprK2NTP0yqrREbSG3Nk4Qa%2B%2Be9S3A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201206172045.q5HKjj92031635@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201206172045.q5HKjj92031635@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2012/6/17, Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org>: > Author: davide > Date: Sun Jun 17 20:45:45 2012 > New Revision: 237202 > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/237202 > > Log: > - Extend the condvar(9) KPI introducing a new cv_timedwait_bt_sig() > function so that we can specify timeout precision in terms of struct > bintime. > > - Now seltdwait() takes three argument rather than two so that their > consumers can specify if the timeout should be passed as ticks or > bintime. > > - Refactor the kern_select() and the sys_poll() code so that these two > services may rely on cv_timedwait_bt_sig() rather than on the previous > less > precise cv_timedwait_sig(). > > - Rethink the sleepqueue(9) KPI in order to make an attempt of avoiding > both code duplication and breakages. Your mileage WILL vary, feel free to > comment. I would still prefer the unified KPI, but at least the committed code avoids code-duplication, I appreciate your effort here, thanks. Why you don't do the same thing for callout_ KPI? Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndA%2BzK5seKuVhx%2BQsprK2NTP0yqrREbSG3Nk4Qa%2B%2Be9S3A>