On quarta-feira, 15 de junho de 2016 17:44:46 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at > intel.com> > wrote: > > On quarta-feira, 15 de junho de 2016 16:42:16 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote: > > > Here's a nutty idea: just use time(). Does Iotivity really need > > > > sub-second > > > > > timing? I don't know the code that well but I'm going to go out on a > > > limb > > > and say no. > > > > We may need monotonic timing, though. > > Strictly speaking I suppose we always want monotonic timing to measure > elapsed time. But CLOCK_MONOTONIC is optional. What if it's not there?
Then we fall back to wall-clock timing. But all major OSes have a monotonic clock. We're far more likely to run into a device that has *no* clock than one that has wall-clock but no monotonic. > In any case, it seems useful to make a distinction between sub-second > timing and monotonic timing. True, but we probably do need sub-second timing. Many CoAP timings are measured in milliseconds (tens or hundreds of). Full-second isn't enough, since delayed replies would take too long to arrive. > Also, I've recently discovered the concept of "tickless kernel". Is that > relevant? I'm guessing no, but I've been wrong befores. Not for us and not now, no. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
