From 278f76de415c83bd06146b2f25a002cf0411d025 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:02:51 +0200 Subject: IRC. --- open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) (limited to 'open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn') diff --git a/open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn b/open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn index c06edc9b..5345ed6b 100644 --- a/open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/clock_gettime.mdwn @@ -39,3 +39,33 @@ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-26: < youpi> yes, it should work < braunr> sure < youpi> and that's the way I was considering implementing it + +IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-09-06: + + yeah, i had a draft of improved idea for also handling + nanoseconds + pinotree: Ah, nice, I thought about nanoseconds as well. + pinotree, youpi: This memory page is all-zero by default, + right? + Can't we then say that its last int is a version code, and if + it is 0 (as it is now), we only have the normal mapped time field, if it + is 1, we also have the monotonic cliock and ns precision on address 8 and + 16 (or whatever)? + In case that isn't your plan anyway. + it's all-zero, yes + Or, we say if a field is != 0 it is valid. + making the last int a version code limits the size to one page + I was thinking a field != 0 being valid is simpler + but it's probably a problem too + in that glibc usually caches whether interfaces are supported + Wrap-around? + for some clocks, it may be valid that the value is 0 + wrap-around is another issue too + Well, then we can do the version-field thing, but put it right + after the current time field (address 8, I think)? + yes + it's a bit ugly, but it's hidden behind the structure + It's not too bad, I think. + yes + And it will forever be a witness of the evolving of this + map_time interface. :-) -- cgit v1.2.3