[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 00/43] ktimer reworked

    On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Kyle Moffett wrote:

    > 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.

    The human language is a bit more complicated than this (at least English
    and related languages). Depending on the context a word can have different
    meanings, e.g. if you ask an athlete what "timeout" means, you'll get a
    different answer than you would get from an engineer. Even if we limit it
    to the technical field one can define "timeout" very generally as "a
    period of time after which an event is generated". Does this imply this
    timeout is usually aborted? For some people it obviously does, but I
    highly doubt this is generally true. Without any context "timeout" can
    mean many similiar, but still different things. If you don't provide any
    context, it will trigger different associations and people will add their
    own context of how they use "timeout". You will of course find a large
    overlap, but the less context you provide, the more likely are

    A good name provides enough context to minimize misunderstandings, the
    name is important for how people will perceive and use something. Here we
    get to a larger problem, which goes beyond simple naming issues. Thomas
    and Ingo seem to want to completely redefine how time is managed in the
    kernel. The consequences for this would be very farreaching and should be
    discussed independently. Discussing this under the topic of high
    resolution timer would provide the entirely wrong context and lead to

    Whatever it is Thomas and Ingo are trying to do with the current kernel
    timer, they have to explain it in the proper context. I'm not going to
    second-guess their intentions and sneaking these changes in as part of the
    high resolution timer is unacceptable.

    bye, Roman
    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 16:43    [W:0.020 / U:7.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site