| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 04:35:57 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Shem Multinymous <multinymous@...il.com>
Cc: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-thinkpad@...ux-thinkpad.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Generic battery interface
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:48:51 +0300, Shem Multinymous said:
> The lazy polling approach I described in my last post to Vojtech
> ("block until there's a new readout or N milliseconds have passed,
> whichever is later") looks like a more general, accurate and efficient
> interface.
That's not good.
If the program says '100ms' because it knows it will need to do a GUI update
then, and you block it for 5 seconds because that's when the next value
update happens, the user is stuck looking at their gkrellm or whatever not
doing anything at all for 4.9 seconds....
This almost forces the use of multiple threads if the program wants to do
its own timer management.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists