Re: a proposed callout API
- From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:21:47 +0000
In message <20061128231010.cbdc4e1d.rnsanchez@xxxxxxxxx>, Ricardo Nabinger Sanc
hez writes:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:31:18 -0500
John Baldwin <jhb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I had intended on using microseconds
with a negative value indicating a relative timeout (so an 'uptime'
timeout, i.e. trigger X us from now) and a positive value indicating an
absolute timeout (time_t-ish, and subject to ntp changes).
Just some devil's advocate thoughts...
What are the advantages of encoding some semantic in one or two bits of the
argument, instead of passing another word with flags?
The bits _will_ go in the flags argument I proposed.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@xxxxxxxxxxx | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: a proposed callout API
- From: Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez
- Re: a proposed callout API
- References:
- Re: a proposed callout API
- From: Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez
- Re: a proposed callout API
- Prev by Date: Re: a proposed callout API
- Next by Date: Re: a proposed callout API
- Previous by thread: Re: a proposed callout API
- Next by thread: Re: a proposed callout API
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|