From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov 29 10:21:53 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9179816A403;
	Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:21:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BEF43CAC;
	Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:21:49 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782D1170C5;
	Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:21:49 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez <rnsanchez@wait4.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:10:10 -0200."
	<20061128231010.cbdc4e1d.rnsanchez@wait4.org> 
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:21:47 +0000
Message-ID: <8092.1164795707@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: a proposed callout API 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:21:53 -0000

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.