From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Timer optimisations, continued From: Philippe Gerum In-Reply-To: <17608.46241.732781.448429@domain.hid> References: <448E98A3.6080707@domain.hid> <448E9E8B.70809@domain.hid> <448EA7F7.5000802@domain.hid> <448EB038.8070802@domain.hid> <448EE593.7010809@domain.hid> <448EF022.1040901@domain.hid> <17550.61982.685449.470866@domain.hid> <44C6626A.6000304@domain.hid> <1153990428.5251.46.camel@domain.hid> <17608.46241.732781.448429@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:19:07 +0200 Message-Id: <1154006347.4984.2.camel@domain.hid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: rpm@xenomai.org List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: Jan Kiszka , xenomai-core On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 14:42 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: > > > o A further improvement should be achievable for scenarios 4 and 5 by > > > introducing absolute xntimers (more precisely: a flag to > > > differentiate between the mode on xntimer_start). I have an outdated > > > patch for this in my repos, needs re-basing. > > > > > > > Grmblm... Well, I would have preferred that we don't add that kind of > > complexity to the nucleus interface, but I must admit that some > > important use cases are definitely better served by absolute timespecs, > > so I would surrender to this requirement, provided the implementation is > > confined to xnpod_suspend_thread() + xntimer_start(). > > It would be nice if absolute timeouts were also available when using > xnsynch_sleep_on. There are a few use cases in the POSIX skin. Makes sense, since xnpod_suspend_thread() and xnsynch_sleep_on() are tightly integrated interfaces. > -- Philippe.