Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-13 Thread Adrian Chadd
... why don't we just mark tsleep() as a barrier point and be done with it? Same as the wakeup call? Adrian ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebs

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-13 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 08:16:32AM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 22:34 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:03:39AM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 12:37 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 02:47:06PM

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-13 Thread Ian Lepore
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 22:34 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:03:39AM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 12:37 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 02:47:06PM +0100, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:58:

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-12 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:03:39AM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 12:37 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 02:47:06PM +0100, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:58:30PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-12 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 12 February 2013 08:03, Ian Lepore wrote: >> I agree that for practical means, the _currently_ used compilers should >> consider the tsleep() call as the sequential point. But then the volatile >> qualifier cast applied for the given access would not change the code as >> well. >> > > Doesn't

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-12 Thread Ian Lepore
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 12:37 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 02:47:06PM +0100, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:58:30PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:41:38PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > > I'd like feedback on th

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-12 Thread Ian Lepore
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 12:41 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 04:13:40PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 17:58 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:41:38PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > > I'd like feedback on the attached p

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-10 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 04:13:40PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 17:58 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:41:38PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > I'd like feedback on the attached patch, which adds support to our > > > time_pps_fetch() implementation

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-10 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 02:47:06PM +0100, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:58:30PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:41:38PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > I'd like feedback on the attached patch, which adds support to our > > > time_pps_fetch() imp

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-09 Thread Adrian Chadd
... why aren't you using atomics? or read/write barriers? Adrian ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-09 Thread Jilles Tjoelker
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:58:30PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:41:38PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > > I'd like feedback on the attached patch, which adds support to our > > time_pps_fetch() implementation for the blocking behaviors described in > > section 3.4.3 of

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-08 Thread Ian Lepore
On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 17:58 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:41:38PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > > I'd like feedback on the attached patch, which adds support to our > > time_pps_fetch() implementation for the blocking behaviors described in > > section 3.4.3 of RFC 278

Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-06 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:41:38PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > I'd like feedback on the attached patch, which adds support to our > time_pps_fetch() implementation for the blocking behaviors described in > section 3.4.3 of RFC 2783. The existing implementation can only return > the most recently ca

Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement

2013-02-05 Thread Ian Lepore
I'd like feedback on the attached patch, which adds support to our time_pps_fetch() implementation for the blocking behaviors described in section 3.4.3 of RFC 2783. The existing implementation can only return the most recently captured data without blocking. These changes add the ability to bloc