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