Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:20:33 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: sensors fun.. Message-ID: <82692.1192800033@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:14:26 %2B0200." <20071019151426.ttkynf788c0g8s4k@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20071019151426.ttkynf788c0g8s4k@webmail.leidinger.net>, Alexander L eidinger writes: Alexander, I'm getting pretty tired of this game of yours. Either you're not paying attention to what I write, or you are so totally blinded by rage that you don't try to understand it. This is my last email to you on this subject. As far as I can tell, you have nothing to do with the actual code, apart from committing it without proper review and discussion, so why don't you step out of the loop, and leave Constantine, who, quite frankly, seems to have a better grasp of the subject than you, participate instead ? >>> What to do with sensors which aren't event based or don't have a >>> predefined polling interval (e.g., temperature and humidity)? What do >>> you think will the ratio be between the amount of sensors with and >>> without something like this? >> >> They poll at whatever rate the application ask them to, (using an >> ioctl ?) > >So you want to put the polling interval (=3D the polling policy) into =20 >the kernel (with e.g, an ioctl)? No, the "polling policy" does not end up in the kernel if the application calls an ioctl that says "poll every 5 seconds". Look up the meaning of the word policy if you don't belive me. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?82692.1192800033>