Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:09:50 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New "timeout" api, to replace callout Message-ID: <2223.1199318990@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:07:21 %2B0100." <477C2739.5000902@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <477C2739.5000902@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <477C1CF3.6070301@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann writes: >> >>> I fear we have to go for the latter. Getting a non-sleeping callout >>> drain seems to be non-trivial. >> >> There is a crucial difference between "non-sleeping" and "not sleeping >> on my lock" that you should be very careful about in this context. >> >> Which is your requirement ? > >Calling timeout_drain() must not sleep and not drop the lock in this >context (while making any pending timeout go away forever). Ok, so if the timeouts callback function is running you propose to do what ? spin until it returns ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2223.1199318990>