From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov 29 22:00:28 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 EF8ED16A4D4;
	Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:00:28 +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 29D7543CD2;
	Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:00:05 +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 080B6170C5;
	Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:00:06 +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 16:50:51 EST."
	<200611291650.51782.jhb@freebsd.org> 
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:00:04 +0000
Message-ID: <11587.1164837604@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 22:00:29 -0000

In message <200611291650.51782.jhb@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin writes:

>> I want it marked up directly in the flags passed which kind of behaviour
>> the code wants.
>
>Hmm, I guess that depends on what you consider tick_t to be.  I was thinking 
>of it as an abstract type for a deadline, and that absolute and relative are 
>sort of like subclasses of that.

I see tick_t only as an opaque measure of time and would prefer to
not have modal bits stuck into it because I fear that will make it
larger than 32 bits.

-- 
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.