From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jan 25 22:34:30 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014F916A4CE
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:34:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854FD43D46
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:34:28 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0Q6YRuO062081;
	Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:34:27 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:29:33 CST."
             <20040125230314.S730@odysseus.silby.com> 
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:34:27 +0100
Message-ID: <62080.1075098867@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Updating callout_reset 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:34:30 -0000

In message <20040125230314.S730@odysseus.silby.com>, Mike Silbersack writes:

>In order to ensure that modules and the like do not break, I would like to
>propose that we leave callout_reset defined as is and create a new
>function, callout_set (or some other clever name) which takes a struct
>*timespec in place of ticks.

No, not timespec.

Timespecs are stupid, slow, clumsy and unhandy and cumbersome.

With a timespec you either need an MPunsafe hack function like
libevents evConsTime() or a local stack variable.

Make it a 64bit count of nanoseconds instead that way it can be
used as a literal constant.

It's OK with me if we want to have a function to contain the "*
1000000000LL" factor for us, and maybe even convenience functions
for milli and microseconds.

-- 
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.