Subject:
|
Re: Implementation of Installable Timers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:12:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3838 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Joseph Woolley wrote:
>
>
> It would seem reasonable to check the location of the struct; if in
> kernel memory, don't remove; if in user memory, remove. However, you
> could add a flag to the timer struct which could use T_KERNEL and T_USER
> flags.
I'd go with the flag, myself.
>
> Maybe a recurring timer should reinsert itself, thus removing that logic
> from the tick code (gives control to the timer function). Perhaps, the
> timer func could return a value indicating reinsertion (-1 = no, >= 0
> specifies the time)
Its certainly possible for the client timer to reinsert itself - therefore the
recurring timer is not strictly required. It could be left out for space
reasons. I'd probably either take it out and make it the client's problem, or
leave it in, fully implemented, as at present.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm working on an active object framework at present.
I'll post when I've got some concrete results.
Iain.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Implementation of Installable Timers
|
| (...) It would seem reasonable to check the location of the struct; if in kernel memory, don't remove; if in user memory, remove. However, you could add a flag to the timer struct which could use T_KERNEL and T_USER flags. (...) I looked quickly (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
