On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:22:59PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather see some consistently used units here..
bintime (or something similar) is the correct choice here.
If we are concerned about the size (128 bit) then we
can map it to a shorter, fixed point format, such
as sign+3
In message <50cf79ad.9040...@freebsd.org>, Alexander Motin writes:
>Hi.
>
> > I wonder why the choice is to use (actually, call) the value
> > "microseconds" rather use a bintime or something scaled and with a
> > well defined resolution.
>
>It was kind of engineering choice. I've chosen m
Personally, I'd rather see some consistently used units here..
Adrian
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:17:54PM -0800, Davide Italiano wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > [addressing the various items separately]
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:57:36PM +0100, Davide Italiano wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> [addressing the various items separately]
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:57:36PM +0100, Davide Italiano wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> ...
>> > - for several functions the only change is the name of an argumen
Hi.
> I wonder why the choice is to use (actually, call) the value
> "microseconds" rather use a bintime or something scaled and with a
> well defined resolution.
It was kind of engineering choice. I've chosen microseconds, following
values used by ACPI to represent CPU sleep states exit latenc
[addressing the various items separately]
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:57:36PM +0100, Davide Italiano wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
> > - for several functions the only change is the name of an argument
> > from "busy" to "us". Can you elaborate the reason for t
