Re: [RFC] A more general timeout specification

[George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

Andi Kleen wrote:
>>I think the accepted and standard way to do this is to use different 
>>"clock"s. For example, in the HRT patch the clocks CLOCK_REALTIME_HR and 
>>CLOCK_MONOTONIC_HR are defined as high resolution clocks.
> 
> 
> Note precision here can be fairly long - some timers dont even
> if they run a minute earlier or later or even longer. For others
> it can be rather small.
> 
> I dont think you want own clocks for all possible numbers. It makes
> much more sense to give a numerical time offset.

That may be, but you will have a hard time finding a standard confroming way to 
pass that info into the kernel.  A few well chosen points should do it...

>
-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/