Messages in this thread | | | From | Kyle Moffett <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/43] ktimer reworked | Date | Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:57:02 -0500 |
| |
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.
Cheers, Kyle Moffett
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |