Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:44:32 +0100 (CET) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/43] ktimer reworked |
| |
Hi,
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Russell King wrote:
> timeout > > A period of time after which an error condition is raised if some event > has not occured. A common example is sending a message. If the receiver > does not acknowledge the message within some preset timeout period, a > transmission error is assumed to have occured. > > timer > > a timepiece that measures a time interval and signals its end > > Hence, timers have the implication that they are _expected_ to expire. > Timeouts have the implication that their expiry is an exceptional > condition.
IOW a timeout uses a timer to implement an exceptional condition after a period of time expires.
> So can we stop rehashing this stupid discussion?
The naming isn't actually my primary concern. I want a precise definition of the expected behaviour and usage of the old and new timer system. If I had this, it would be far easier to choose a proper name. E.g. I still don't know why ktimeout should be restricted to raise just "error conditions", as the name implies.
bye, Roman - 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/
| |