From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:30:44 +0100
From: "Devon H. O'Dell " <dodell@offmyserver.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] tsleep / timer questions
Message-ID: <20050326083044.GG93332@smp500.sitetronics.com>
References: <26029ec71211f29300ddd8b5225f1e38@coraid.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0503240853330.17754@enigma.lanl.gov>
	<Pine.LNX.4.60.0503241539520.12105@athena>
	<20050325183606.GA93332@smp500.sitetronics.com>
	<ee9e417a0503251057779bdb8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050325200401.GB93332@smp500.sitetronics.com>
	<ee9e417a05032512122f63e7bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050325202349.GD93332@smp500.sitetronics.com>
	<ee9e417a0503251336135b4a80@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gvF4niNJ+uBMJnEh"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ee9e417a0503251336135b4a80@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2c1e9d58-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


--gvF4niNJ+uBMJnEh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Russ Cox wrote:
> > Another (final, less important) question: what is the general
> > resolution of tsleep versus addclock0link going to be?=20
>=20
> Ultimately tsleep and addclock0link events are both
> triggered by the clock interrupt handler, so the precision
> is the same.  Tsleep inside a kproc is heavier weight,
> but if you need lots of context then the kproc can help
> out.  It sounds like in your case addclock0link is the way
> to go.  Whichever makes your code simpler.
>=20
> Russ

Yes, it does. Thanks!

--Devon

--gvF4niNJ+uBMJnEh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFCRR20Skf3jVXOdl0RAr4sAKCKmCaGJ/G0BZAde40ktoycCQJwVQCfdknF
C7H9Fgcj9aGVjIbUdQL9VcY=
=mPZO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--gvF4niNJ+uBMJnEh--