Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:10:36 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updating callout_reset Message-ID: <20040127120826.V4636@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20040126212725.E1244@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20040125230314.S730@odysseus.silby.com> <20040126212725.E1244@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Bruce Evans wrote: > Many callers don't worry much about efficiency and do calculations like > (hz / 10) to get the timeout. This is still more efficient than the > 64-bit divisions and other complications needed to handle general > conversions of times to timeouts. (Look at tvtohz(). Note that the > complications in it have very little to do with struct timeval not > being a scalar type. They are to handle representation problems.) > > Bruce I've thought more about this, and although I could debate some points, you've convinced me that changing the interface without changing the implementation is totally pointless. So, if I ever get around to implementation changes, then I'll come back and we can rediscuss some of these issues. Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040127120826.V4636>