[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MirageOS-devel] NTP client integration with MirageOS / Mini-OS

On 19 August 2016 at 16:40, Hannes Mehnert <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hey,
> On 27/07/2016 17:07, Mindy wrote:
>> On 07/27/2016 02:05 PM, Matthew Gray wrote:
>>> Should MCLOCK also implement the DEVICE signature? I think so, for
>>> consistency.
>> Making PCLOCK be a device looks completely reasonable to me, and I see
>> no reason not to make MCLOCK be one as well.  Thoughts?
> I can see value in making PCLOCK a device, but I fail to see any reason
> to make MCLOCK a device.  I don't expect MCLOCK to have internal state,
> neither to be able to error, nor that anyone would ever want to
> disconnect from it.
> For PCLOCK it makes sense since timezone and DST (plus adjustment to a
> real clock) may be needed, but MCLOCK is some arbitrary, always
> increasing, tick.  PCLOCK might then also need some adjust_t : t ->
> offset -> unit function, or how do people expect the timezone to be set?
> Or is there something I'm missing regarding MCLOCK?
> Sorry to not have responded earlier here (and I can see that some amount
> of implementation regarding this has already been done).

MCLOCK might have internal state for testing, although a global would
work there too if necessary.

While we're fixing all the clock APIs, how about moving sleep into
It seems strange to have TIME and CLOCK be separate devices.

(and maybe have `CLOCK.at time` rather than or as well as `sleep`)

talex5 (GitHub/Twitter)        http://roscidus.com/blog/
GPG: 5DD5 8D70 899C 454A 966D  6A51 7513 3C8F 94F6 E0CC
GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA  BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA

MirageOS-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.