Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:16:43 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> To: =?iso-8859-1?q?shubha=20mr?= <shubha_mr@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: untimeout reliable? Message-ID: <200210310416.g9V4GhqG062975@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20021031040420.78826.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20021031040420.78826.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 04:04:19 +0000 (GMT), =?iso-8859-1?q?shubha=20mr?= <shubha_mr@yahoo.com> said: > Simply put,will untimeout cause to de-establish a > timeout irrespective of the position/status of a > timeout already scheduled?In other words,will > untimeout prove futile sometimes? No and yes, respectively. If the timeout is already running, untimeout (or more properly, callout_stop()) cannot do anything about it. All it can do is remove the timeout from the list of things to be called next time. What this means for a developer is that you need to provide some other means of mutual exclusion, and you need to be very careful with timeout handlers that reestablish their own timeouts. (Such handlers will need a ``go away'' condition that they can check before rescheduling the timeout.) The old timeout()/untimeout() interface is deprecated, by the way. New applications should use callout_reset()/callout_stop() instead. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200210310416.g9V4GhqG062975>