Hello! On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 07:39:22AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 02:44:46PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > An open issue to me so far is if we can find an efficient way to > > continue providing `libshouldbeinlibc''s `maptime' interface. > > The real question to ask is: Why did the original Mach designers pay so > much attention to an efficient way of getting the system time -- and are > their reasons relevant to us? > > If the answer is that they aren't, I guess your proposal is fine, and > maptime() can really be dropped alltogether. If the the anser is that > they might be, your proposal could be problematic.
In fact had I already tried to measure this: by `syslog'ging each time `maptime_read' is used. But for that to yield usable results, first the `syslog' bug (see my other email) needs to be fixed... :-) (Also, a thusly equipped `ext2fs.static' made the system boot hang when ``cleaning up temporary files''.) Looking at the source code, I see that it is used inside `pfinet' for timing issues and a few times in the file system servers. > (I guess you can map the memory region from the server just as well, > but time updates might be less reliable when done in a server instead > of the kernel...) Yes, that's explicitly what I wanted to avoid. Otherwise we would have to guarantee that the time server is considered regularely by the scheduler -- and that mostly for nothing. Regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
