Subject: Re: vague proposal for new scheduler primitive: asynchronous "sleep"
To: Bill Sommerfeld <email@example.com>
From: Eduardo E. Horvath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/09/1999 18:24:08
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> void asleep(void *ident,
> void (*callback)(void *arg, int),
> void *arg, int timo);
> "asynchronous sleep". Returns immediately after setting things up
> such that callback() will be called at some point in the future;
> either as:
> callback(arg, 1);
> after `timo' clock ticks, or as
> callback(arg, 0);
> if some process calls wakeup(ident) before the timeout expires. as
> with tsleep, timo==0 -> doesn't time out.
How is this different from callint timeout() and then untimeout()?
Eduardo Horvath email@example.com
"I need to find a pithy new quote." -- me