> personal opinion: the difficulty of getting this code right, and its > complexity, tell me something is wrong with the interface. Look at the > trouble we're going through to get a 64-bit number out of the kernel. > Look at how hard it is to get right. > > Two ways out: > 1. "reserved" fds. an fd that is always open, can not be closed, and > will return important values, e.g. reserved fd 32766 could always be a > connection to bintime > 2. a system call to get bintime.
both of these seem like trouble, and could cause reduced functionality. i can bind nsec from someplace else if i want to, now. > others? Either way I don't see the current approach as making a lot of sense. why not put nsecfd in _tos, too? sincechildren not sharing fd tables must have a different _tos, they can change the fd. the remaining byte ordering perhaps should be promoted (with its twin) to 9sys. there's an implementation of both that accept any interger size in sdodin.c in the contrib version of sd. - erik
