Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:21:02 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com>, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, imp@village.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, bde@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/13644 Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000124165830.20380B-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200001242121.NAA92301@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote: > : > :The "maximum interval to wait for the selection to complete" isn't > :really the maximum, but more like the lower bounds of the time to > :wait for the selection. > : > :Dan Eischen > :eischen@vigrid.com > > It's definitely a maximum, because select() can return much sooner if > one of the I/O events being waited on occurs. It's not a maximum if you round up to the nearest clock tick. > If you call it a minimum > you imply that select() will not return until at least the specified > amount of time elapses, which is incorrect. Just because it may go > slightly over the specified time when no I/O events are pending does not > change anything -- FreeBSD is not a hard-realtime system and programmers > understand that. If anyone were to actually get confused by this, they > have to go back to school. I know all this, but I still prefer Solaris' wording over what we have. If someone is going to change the man page for this, then I suggest we do it in a way that is more clear. "system activity" doesn't seem to me to cover rounding up to the nearest clock tick. I'm happy with leaving the man page as it is also. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.1000124165830.20380B-100000>