From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lm1Hg-00065a-31
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:42:52 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lm1Hb-00065O-Cx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:42:51 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45305 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lm1Hb-00065L-7i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:42:47 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:57754)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1Lm1Ha-0000IL-Oy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:42:47 -0400
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26])
	by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2O7ghcp030139
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:42:46 -0400
Message-ID: <49C88F14.7000008@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:43:16 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [patch 1/7] qemu: mutex/thread/cond wrappers
References: <20090319145705.988576615@localhost.localdomain>	<20090319150537.801001000@localhost.localdomain>	<49C26BE9.4030905@redhat.com>
	<20090323231756.GA4626@amt.cnet>
In-Reply-To: <20090323231756.GA4626@amt.cnet>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> and why milliseconds?  
>>     
>
> Well, its suitable for the current purposes. Any other suggestion?
>
>   

uint64_t nanoseconds.  It's standard timekeeping in qemu:

   #define QEMU_TIMER_BASE 1000000000LL

and it's of course best to limit the number of standards.


>> Also, maybe uint64_t is a  better type.
>>     
>
>   
>>> +
>>> +int qemu_mutex_timedlock(QemuMutex *mutex, unsigned int msecs)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct timespec ts;
>>> +
>>> +    clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts);
>>> +    add_to_timespec(&ts, msecs);
>>> +
>>> +    return pthread_mutex_timedlock(&mutex->lock, &ts);
>>> +}
>>>   
>>>       
>> I would have preferred a deadline instead of a timeout, but we'll see on  
>> the next patches.
>>     
>
> Please expand?
>   

Instead of 'sleep until n nanoseconds have elapsed', 'sleep until 
get_clock() >= deadline'.  I think it simplifies things somewhat.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.