Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:23:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), julian@whistle.com, gibbs@plutotech.com, bde@zeta.org.au, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new timeout routines Message-ID: <199709241523.JAA12165@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199709240621.XAA05226@usr07.primenet.com> References: <199709231452.IAA07122@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199709240621.XAA05226@usr07.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > These were my thoughts while reading the paper. I was a little > > > dissapointed that you didn't implement the compatible interface that > > > they originally wrote. > > > > Now, this is something I don't understand. Why the need for the > > 'cookies' in the drivers, since I don't see what it gains us? (Time to > > go re-read the code and paper again.) > > Untimeout this particular timeout without traversing the whole list > of possible timeouts. 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. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709241523.JAA12165>