Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:20:26 -0600 From: Eric van Gyzen <vangyzen@FreeBSD.org> To: Ed Schouten <ed@nuxi.nl> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: sem_timedwait3(..., ..., clockid_t) Message-ID: <e285d493-e3f3-712f-05b6-134dccd5f071@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CABh_MKkhBwerUpEKzgDs27_B5VNyvH9uhR-cOL4eF2rAof4foQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <1d1cb3d6-a2d2-1a3e-5d20-51206524ffbe@FreeBSD.org> <e0bc00fc-36f4-a81b-62fc-367931b3929c@FreeBSD.org> <CABh_MKkhBwerUpEKzgDs27_B5VNyvH9uhR-cOL4eF2rAof4foQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/16/2017 00:47, Ed Schouten wrote: > Hi Eric, > > 2017-02-15 22:57 GMT+01:00 Eric van Gyzen <vangyzen@freebsd.org>: >> int sem_timedwait3_np(sem_t *sem, const struct timespec *abs_timeout, >> clockid_t clock_id); > > Could we please make the argument order a bit more consistent to > clock_nanosleep() (i.e., putting the clockid_t in front of the > timespec)? Sure. I had made them consistent with sem_timedwait, but your suggestion makes sense, especially since... > Should we also provide support for the TIMER_ABSTIME flag? That sounds useful. I would also need to add a parameter for returning the remaining time. How does this look? https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9656 I have not yet tested it, so don't spend time on a line-by-line review yet. Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e285d493-e3f3-712f-05b6-134dccd5f071>