Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:40:18 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 1205651 for review Message-ID: <2139225.f57X192toO@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <20150203214358.GT27103@funkthat.com> References: <201502030012.t130Cnni073962@skunkworks.freebsd.org> <201502031537.02953.jhb@freebsd.org> <20150203214358.GT27103@funkthat.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Tuesday, February 03, 2015 01:43:58 PM John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > Do not use a callout_handle. timeout() is about to be removed from the
> > tree (there is only one consumer left). Use a struct callout instead.
>
> Yeh, I was just looking at that for another reason.. I'll update it
> shortly..
>
> oh, btw, has it been anounced that timeout is being removed beyond
> -arch or -current? i.e. was it marked deprecated in 10? if so, isn't
> that distruptive to third party code that might be using it?
There has been a statement of
"The timeout() call is the old style and new code should use the
callout_*() functions."
in timeout(9) since 2003. I reworded this to be more strong about 3 months
ago:
LEGACY API
The functions below are a legacy API that will be removed in a future
release. New code should not use these routines.
This did not make 10.1 AFAIK, but will make all later releases before 11.0
hits. Note that timeout(9) is always Giant-locked, so there is extra impetus
to not use it.
--
John Baldwin
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2139225.f57X192toO>