Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 14:00:58 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: Measuring interrupt latency Message-ID: <200111102100.fAAL0w766516@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Nov 2001 13:45:18 EST." <200111091845.fA9IjIE19568@whizzo.transsys.com> References: <200111091845.fA9IjIE19568@whizzo.transsys.com> <574.1005324178@critter.freebsd.dk> <200111091703.fA9H3B753981@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200111091845.fA9IjIE19568@whizzo.transsys.com> "Louis A. Mamakos" writes: : One a related, timekeeping note: is there any interest in updating or : extending the SO_TIMESTAMP socket option to return higher resolution : timestamps? Currently, it returns a struct timeval. I think that's a great idea. Something compatible with others would be my first choice. My second choice would be phk's 64.64 idea. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200111102100.fAAL0w766516>