James Browning said: >> We need to keep in mind how to make this work in a multi threaded >> environment. > I think you would need to deglobalize some variables first.
What do you have in mind? I think there is an Atomic "library" that is mostly the compiler being smart enough to recognize a few special cases. I'm pretty sure the Intel hardware directly supports foo += xx and hence foo++ if you use the right instructions. So we have to use the right macros but we don't need locks. There are a few places where it might be nice to update a set of counters at the same time. For example, the number of packets received and the number processed or dropped or ... I'm willing to live with that fuzz on a busy system. -------- >> There is a slight complication. We need the name that comes back with a >> variable to be a meaningful description. > So, drop the Millsian object notation (or whatever it is called) for > something closer to JSON? Protobuf need not apply. I'm not interested in JSON. We could add a pretty name to the table and a way for ntpq to ask for the pretty name. ------------ > For example, after butchering all the following it occurred to me that one > could just ad a CB (callback) or HOOK value. I mean it is not like there is a > sudden lack of space for them. I wouldn't have called it "callback". There is no back part. My straw man is that each slot in the table has a name (that ntpq asks for), flags, type tag, pointer to variable, and print routine. My print routine is probably your callback. I'm expecting that we will need a half dozen or so print routines for the common cases (int, long int, unsigned long..., float, double...) and a half dozed or so slots that need a dedicated print routine. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
