Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:21:47 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez <rnsanchez@wait4.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a proposed callout API Message-ID: <8092.1164795707@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:10:10 -0200." <20061128231010.cbdc4e1d.rnsanchez@wait4.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20061128231010.cbdc4e1d.rnsanchez@wait4.org>, Ricardo Nabinger Sanc hez writes: >On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:31:18 -0500 >John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> I had intended on using microseconds >> with a negative value indicating a relative timeout (so an 'uptime' >> timeout, i.e. trigger X us from now) and a positive value indicating an >> absolute timeout (time_t-ish, and subject to ntp changes). > >Just some devil's advocate thoughts... > >What are the advantages of encoding some semantic in one or two bits of the >argument, instead of passing another word with flags? The bits _will_ go in the flags argument I proposed. -- 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?8092.1164795707>