From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <92606a17ce255a2e74049e4090d948b3@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 19:13:21 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <063412cb21a6433d959274d7db87d242@ladd.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] syscall 53
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e862a768-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> i took a quick look at the runtime=C2=B7nanotime, and it looks like it'=
s being
> used for gettimeofday, which shouldn't be super performance sensitive.

I'm on thin ice here, but I seem to remember that the crucial issue
was the resolution (nanosecond) and the expectation that Plan 9 would
have to match (for portability purposes) the quality available on
other operating system.

Curiously, I'm pretty certain that it was the issue of an fd that
remained open (something to do with caching the /dev/time fd, if I
remember right) that caused some tests to fall apart, probably because
a test for leaking fds actually needed to cache the time of day for
time out purposes.

Two birds with one stone?  On the one hand you gain accuracy and on
the other you actually successfully complete the tests.

++L