Re: An idea and proposal about system time

On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 11:06 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > 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. These "few times" are crucial; every single time a file access is performed, a timestamp needs to be marked

Re: An idea and proposal about system time

[EMAIL PROTECTED], le Sat 17 Feb 2007 07:39:22 +0100, a écrit : > 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

Re: An idea and proposal about system time

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

Re: An idea and proposal about system time

Hi, 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 eff

An idea and proposal about system time

Hello! This is for one an attempt to solve ``gnumach should be able to handle local time in RTC'' in an elegant way, but -- while actually achieving that -- also quickly goes one sphere further. It's about system time. There are currently two possible ways t