[En-Nut-Discussion] Socket timeouts

[Ralph Mason]

I don't really think there is much need to interact with the operating
system in a timer call back.

It has many many drawbacks (not the least of which is non deterministic
stack requirements)

What is wrong with a thread like?

while(1){
	NutSleep(1000);

	//Do synchronised code
}

Nice, safe simple.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de
> [mailto:en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de]On Behalf Of Damian Slee
> Sent: Monday, 22 September 2003 4:03
> To: en-nut-discussion at egnite.de
> Subject: RE: [En-Nut-Discussion] Socket timeouts
>
>
> >>You should not need any synchronisation between threads
>
> what about the Nut timer callbacks which is interrupt based?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Mason [mailto:ralph.mason at telogis.com]
> Sent: Friday, 19 September 2003 1:03 PM
> To: en-nut-discussion at egnite.de
> Subject: RE: [En-Nut-Discussion] Socket timeouts
>
>
> You should not need any synchronisation between threads, because
> there is no
> preemptive scheduling.
>
> Your thread will only context switch if you let it.
>
> Ralph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de
> > [mailto:en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de]On Behalf Of Damian Slee
> > Sent: Friday, 19 September 2003 11:51
> > To: en-nut-discussion at egnite.de
> > Subject: RE: [En-Nut-Discussion] Socket timeouts
> >
> >
> > I'm using SO_RCVTIMEO, mainly so I can do some other things on
> > the same thread,  I could do it on another thread, but then would
> > have to handle syncronising access to variables from different
> > threads.  And some more resources would be used by the second thread.
> >
> > I'm not changing SO_SNDTIMEO.  ie leaving it as blocking, if the
> > internally buffer can't take it all.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cosmin Buhu [mailto:cosminbuhu at lycos.co.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 September 2003 9:03 PM
> > To: en-nut-discussion at egnite.de
> > Subject: [En-Nut-Discussion] Socket timeouts
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 	Hello,
> >
> > 	Please if anyone can comment about socket timeouts,
> > SO_SNDTIMEO and SO_RCVTIMEO, how are they acting and what should
> > be a good strategy to use them.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cosmin
> > _______________________________________________
> > En-Nut-Discussion mailing list
> > En-Nut-Discussion at egnite.de
> > http://www.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo/en-nut-discussion
> > _______________________________________________
> > En-Nut-Discussion mailing list
> > En-Nut-Discussion at egnite.de
> > http://www.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo/en-nut-discussion
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 1/09/2003
> >
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 1/09/2003
>
> _______________________________________________
> En-Nut-Discussion mailing list
> En-Nut-Discussion at egnite.de
> http://www.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo/en-nut-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> En-Nut-Discussion mailing list
> En-Nut-Discussion at egnite.de
> http://www.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo/en-nut-discussion
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 1/09/2003
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 1/09/2003