From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 31 4:10:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from hda.hda.com (hda-bicnet.bicnet.net [209.244.238.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C7A15037 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:10:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dufault@hda.hda.com) Received: (from dufault@localhost) by hda.hda.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA16958; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 07:07:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Dufault Message-Id: <199908311107.HAA16958@hda.hda.com> Subject: Re: HEADS UP In-Reply-To: <199908310243.MAA06997@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from Bruce Evans at "Aug 31, 99 12:43:16 pm" To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 07:07:23 -0400 (EDT) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL25 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. 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