From owner-freebsd-current Mon Aug 30 19:43:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC2C153A3 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:43:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au) Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06997; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:43:16 +1000 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:43:16 +1000 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199908310243.MAA06997@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: dufault@hda.com, julian@whistle.com Subject: Re: HEADS UP Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au, jlemon@americantv.com Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> How about struct timeval instead? Timevals shouldn't be used in new interfaces. Use timespecs, which are both Standard and more future proof. >Firstly we are talking about time deltas, and on the sysctl side of things >it's very hard to set 'timevals (as you'd need to set two different >variables) so you need a single value on teh userland side of things. sysctl can handle structs. The problems are that sysctl(8) has little or no support for inputting structs, and timespec units might be inconvenient (sysctl -w kern.quantum=0.001000000 vs sysctl -w kern.quantum=10000). We already use microseconds instead of nanoseconds for kern.quantum because nanoseconds resolution is unwieldy and not needed. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message