[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 00/43] ktimer reworked
    On Nov 30, 2005, at 22:32, Roman Zippel wrote:
    > On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    >> but what we'd like to achieve as an end-result is the clear
    >> separation of 'timer' vs. 'timeout' APIs. Our proposed end result
    >> would be to have 'struct ktimer' for timers, and 'struct ktimeout'
    >> for timeouts.
    > Sorry, but calling it "ktimeout" would be completely wrong.
    > "timeout" is a rather imprecise term, which can have different
    > meanings depending on the context, e.g. any timer usually has a
    > "timeout value", but what is meant here is a "timeout timer". So
    > basically this is supposed to be about "timer" vs "timeout timer".
    > [snip lengthy discussion]

    If I recall correctly, this whole naming mess has been discussed to
    death before, with the result that almost everybody but Roman thought
    the names were perfectly clear such that a timer is _expected_ to
    expire and a timeout is not, therefore timers should be optimized for
    add=>run=>expire and timeouts optimized for add=>run=>remove.

    Kyle Moffett

    Version: 3.12
    GCM/CS/IT/E/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ ULBX*++++(+++)>$ P++++(+++)>$ L++++
    (+++)>$ !E- W+++(++) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP
    + t+(+++) 5 X R? !tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+(++) D+++ G e>++++$ h*(+)>++$ r
    %(--) !y?-(--)
    ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-01 05:01    [W:0.020 / U:4.076 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site