RE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification

[Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky]

>From: Christopher Friesen [mailto:cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxx]
>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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/