Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:17:53 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, Alan Cox <alc@rice.edu>, "Jayachandran C." <jchandra@freebsd.org>, Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>, Oleksandr Tymoshenko <gonzo@bluezbox.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r243631 - in head/sys: kern sys Message-ID: <50F42FB1.6020401@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <50F42CD7.6020400@freebsd.org> References: <201211272119.qARLJxXV061083@svn.freebsd.org> <ABB3E29B-91F3-4C25-8FAB-869BBD7459E1@bluezbox.com> <50C1BC90.90106@freebsd.org> <50C25A27.4060007@bluezbox.com> <50C26331.6030504@freebsd.org> <50C26AE9.4020600@bluezbox.com> <50C3A3D3.9000804@freebsd.org> <50C3AF72.4010902@rice.edu> <330405A1-312A-45A5-BB86-4969478D8BBD@bluezbox.com> <50D03E83.8060908@rice.edu> <50DD081E.8000409@bluezbox.com> <50EB1841.5030006@bluezbox.com> <50EB22D2.6090103@rice.edu> <50EB415F.8020405@freebsd.org> <CA%2B7sy7CkdoyScOEDEXWuwJxjCS5zTcC8_fu9isCeTFxT8opNJQ@mail.gmail.com> <50F04FE5.7010406@rice.edu> <CA%2B7sy7D=ZjTLirGW3BVGcAu0h8-dWpib%2BYziUjEqegOL9J4adw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonLoL4E3UsNwx87p2FuHXTbJe7wFs9hBn5Zmr7TTQOSkg@mail.gmail.com> <50F1BD69.4060104@mu.org> <CAJ-VmokjZ_vpcmYeD65pWJN5tfhqn6yDXrFFcXf8dvYc55tQtg@mail.gmail.com> <50F2F79C.7040109@mu.org> <50F41F8C.5030900@freebsd.org> <50F4297F.8050708@FreeBSD.org> <50F42CD7.6020400@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/14/13 11:05 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > Can timeout() be emulated on top of another API so we can do away with > it? yes, this is what callout(9) is for. there are a few consumers left (see the email I just sent out). those consumers would just have to allocate their own callout handle/struct and pass that to callout instead of using timeout(9). -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50F42FB1.6020401>