>> Is there a better term than alarm? The normal case will be to >> wait for a packet to arrive with a N second timeout. That's just >> a timeout on a poll.
> I use 'alarm' because I think of it as what alarm(2) does. I'm not wedded > to that term. alarm(2) uses a signal. I think of that as ugly overhead. But on the other hand, if it's at most once per second that's not a big deal. If it actually makes the code cleaner, we should do it that way. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
