Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 07:07:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP Message-ID: <199908311107.HAA16958@hda.hda.com> In-Reply-To: <199908310243.MAA06997@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from Bruce Evans at "Aug 31, 99 12:43:16 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> How about struct timeval instead? > > Timevals shouldn't be used in new interfaces. Use timespecs, which are > both Standard and more future proof. Agreed. > >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. # sysctl -w kern.quantum=1000us # kern.quantum: 1000us -> 1000us is an argument for settling on a single future proof structure. Peter -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Realtime development, Machine control, HD Associates, Inc. Safety critical systems, Agency approval To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908311107.HAA16958>