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
[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 ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote:
...
- for several functions the only change is the name of an argument
from busy to us. Can you elaborate the
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 latencies.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it 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 ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote:
...
- for several functions the only
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:17:54PM -0800, Davide Italiano wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it 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
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
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 microseconds
