From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov 29 19:45:50 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6A616A407;
	Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:45:50 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18B543CA3;
	Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:45:46 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F996170C5;
	Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:45:48 +0000 (UTC)
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:46:00 EST."
	<200611291346.01246.jhb@freebsd.org> 
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:45:46 +0000
Message-ID: <10814.1164829546@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: a proposed callout API 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:45:50 -0000

In message <200611291346.01246.jhb@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin writes:

>Different APIs would be fine.  IIRC, that's how Darwin does it.  With the
>tick_t idea, you could easily have:
>
>tick_t relative_wakeup(ulong nsec)
>tick_t absolute_wakeup(struct timeval *tv) (or something else, etc.)

I really do not want to encode the rel/abs aspect in the tick_t.

I want it marked up directly in the flags passed which kind of behaviour
the code wants.

>walltime timeouts (such as for TCP as Poul-Henning mentioned).  I like tick_t,
>I just want to make sure we change foosleep() to use it as well, and wanted to
>raise the idea of relative vs absolute deadlines.

Agreed, foosleep() should take tick_t as well.

I propose you and I write up the new API in detail and then present
that document here on arch@ at a latter date.

Is that OK with you ?

-- 
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.