Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:22:25 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jb@cimlogic.com.au (John Birrell) Cc: thorpej@nas.nasa.gov, jb@cimlogic.com.au, terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org, tech-kern@netbsd.org Subject: Re: poll(2) Message-ID: <199612101822.LAA04533@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199612100115.MAA11043@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> from "John Birrell" at Dec 10, 96 12:15:58 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > "Discuss." :-) > > If NetBSD's kernel is moving towards everything being done in timespecs, > then the best that the real kernel *should* offer would be a nanopoll > syscall with a timespec argument. Then libc could provide wrappers for > poll(2) and upoll(2). poll(3) and upoll(2). also select(3) and nselect(3). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612101822.LAA04533>