From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 6 20:40:27 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 5F6A97E5; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 20:40:27 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FFFB7E3 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 20:40:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE4779D8 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 20:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ralph.baldwin.cx (pool-173-54-116-245.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net [173.54.116.245]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44B7CB94F; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 15:40:25 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: John-Mark Gurney Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 1205651 for review Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:40:18 -0500 Message-ID: <2139225.f57X192toO@ralph.baldwin.cx> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.2 (FreeBSD/10.1-STABLE; KDE/4.14.2; amd64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20150203214358.GT27103@funkthat.com> References: <201502030012.t130Cnni073962@skunkworks.freebsd.org> <201502031537.02953.jhb@freebsd.org> <20150203214358.GT27103@funkthat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:40:25 -0500 (EST) Cc: Perforce Change Reviews X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 20:40:27 -0000 On Tuesday, February 03, 2015 01:43:58 PM John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > Do not use a callout_handle. timeout() is about to be removed from the > > tree (there is only one consumer left). Use a struct callout instead. > > Yeh, I was just looking at that for another reason.. I'll update it > shortly.. > > oh, btw, has it been anounced that timeout is being removed beyond > -arch or -current? i.e. was it marked deprecated in 10? if so, isn't > that distruptive to third party code that might be using it? There has been a statement of "The timeout() call is the old style and new code should use the callout_*() functions." in timeout(9) since 2003. I reworded this to be more strong about 3 months ago: LEGACY API The functions below are a legacy API that will be removed in a future release. New code should not use these routines. This did not make 10.1 AFAIK, but will make all later releases before 11.0 hits. Note that timeout(9) is always Giant-locked, so there is extra impetus to not use it. -- John Baldwin