Re: [9fans] tsleep / timer questions

["Devon H. O'Dell " <dodell@offmyserver.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1064 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 03:12:35PM -0500, Russ Cox wrote:
> It's in the portfns on sources:
> 
> x40=; 9fs sources
> x40=; 9p read sources/plan9/sys/src/9/port/portfns.h | grep addclock0
> Timer*		addclock0link(void (*)(void), int);
> x40=; 
> 
> and it's been that way as far back as the sources dump
> goes (2002).
> 
> Note that this is only a (relatively) recent addition to
> Plan 9; in Inferno there was no extra parameter.
> 
> Russ

Gah, I'm using the VMWare image at the moment -- it must be
terribly old. Thanks for pointing this out, and sorry I didn't
check this first.

Another (final, less important) question: what is the general
resolution of tsleep versus addclock0link going to be? Precision
isn't 100% important; the watchdog operates on a crystal that
guarantees that it will not fire before the timer runs out (and
averages about 30ms latency), but between the choice of running
this with addclock0link using the extra parameter and using a
kproc with tsleep, which would be recommended?

Thanks a lot!

--Devon

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]