Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:44:16 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, julian@whistle.com, bde@zeta.org.au, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new timeout routines Message-ID: <199709241644.KAA12667@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199709241611.KAA22907@pluto.plutotech.com> References: <199709241523.JAA12165@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199709241611.KAA22907@pluto.plutotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Justin T. Gibbs writes: > >Build a hash list that uses the (fn, args) parameter at timeout time > >(which is what the result of the cookie is), and then get to the timeout > >via hashing back on this with untimeout(fn, args). No need for the > >drivers to hold onto the cookie, since you have all the necessary > >information. > > No-one said this wasn't possible. It just takes additional space and > makes untimeout's running time non-deterministic. I decided it was > an unacceptable tradeoff. How do you figure? untimeout is now the same as it was before, or aren't the cookies based on a hash table? Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709241644.KAA12667>