Would somebody care to comment on the following:
I wanted a timeout of 5 seconds in an ezca program, therefore I set
ezcaSetTimeout(5.0) and ezcaSetRetryCount(0). As a result of this
all successful puts and gets took AT LEAST 5 seconds, regardless of
how long the actual ca operation took.
This seems to be due to the exclusive use of ca_pend_event within ezca
rather than ca_pend_io - was there a compelling reason to prefer
ca_pend_event in this way?
Guy Jennings
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
IP-Octal 432 and 485 pinouts Mark Rivers
- Next:
Re: sch2edif query Nick Rees
- Index:
1994
1995
<1996>
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: IP-Octal 432 and 485 pinouts Tim Mooney
- Next:
Re: sch2edif query Nick Rees
- Index:
1994
1995
<1996>
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|