From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Nov 30 07:06:10 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF5F16A412;
	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:06:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3403643CB9;
	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:05:56 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1719170C5;
	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:06:01 +0000 (UTC)
To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:57:41 MST."
	<20061129.235741.-278387249.imp@bsdimp.com> 
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:05:59 +0000
Message-ID: <13664.1164870359@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: rwatson@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: a proposed callout API 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:06:10 -0000

In message <20061129.235741.-278387249.imp@bsdimp.com>, "M. Warner Losh" writes
:

>: As far as I know we have no sleepers on UTC scale in the kernel and
>: nobody has said otherwise throughout this discussion.
>
>Then never mind, that solve that problem :-)

Well, at least it isolates that aspect to the poorly defined userland
sleep facilities in POSIX, which as we know, doesn't even recognize
what a timescale is or why it is important to read the entire
definition of one :-)

-- 
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.