Subject: Re: vague proposal for new scheduler primitive: asynchronous "sleep"
To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>
From: Eduardo E. Horvath <eeh@one-o.com>
List: tech-kern
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				eeh@one-o.com
	"I need to find a pithy new quote." -- me