lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-01 18:47    [W:0.122 / U:2.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site