Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:02:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: gibbs@plutotech.com, nate@mt.sri.com, tlambert@primenet.com, bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new timeout routines Message-ID: <199709242303.QAA22758@usr03.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <3429630C.167EB0E7@whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Sep 24, 97 11:59:24 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> there is an assumption in a lot of code that untimeout is idempotent > (did I get that right?). It can be called whenever you are recovering > from unknown situations with the sure knowledge that the appropriate > timeout will be removed. This is kind of a bad assumption; it assumes no kernel preemption. It also probably means that the timeout is being scheduled way earlier than it should be in the code (before parameter checks, etc.). > 1/ there is no way to do this without lots of work now. > 2/ old code will break. The new code is actually expecting to be called reflexively. This is not a bad thing. All the lock code works this way (for example). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709242303.QAA22758>