[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
>From: Christopher Friesen []
>Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
>>>I can get the first sleep. Suppose I oversleep by X nanoseconds. I
>>>wake, and get an opaque timeout back. How do I ask for the new wake
>>>time to be "endtime + INTERVAL"?
>> endtime.ts += INTERVAL
>> [we all know opaque is relative too]
>Heh. Okay, then what are the rules about what I'm allowed to do with
>endtime? Joe mentioned there was a bit in there somewhere to denote
>absolute time.

Well, it doesn't really matter. The bit in endtime.clock_id (highest,
AFAIR) says if it is absolute or not, but because adding a relative
value to a value maintains its condition (absolute or relative), it
is not a concern. Just add it.

Unless I am missing something really basic, of course.

>> Or better, use itimers :)
>I as actually thinking in terms of implementing itimers on top of your
>new API.

Heh, got me.

-- Inaky
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-01 01:21    [W:0.018 / U:3.712 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site