Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:40:56 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/21] hrtimer - High-resolution timer subsystem |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >
>>Maybe it is that timeout is an end result, but timer is a mechanism. > > > hm, i think you are right. > > >>So maybe it should be 'struct interval', 'struct timeout'; or 'struct >>timer', 'struct timeout_timer'. > > > maybe 'struct timer' and 'struct hrtimer' is the right solution after > all, and our latest queue doing 'struct timer_list' + 'struct hrtimer' > is actually quite close to it. > > 'struct ptimer' does have a bit of vagueness in it at first sight, do > you agree with that? (does it mean 'process'? 'posix'? 'precision'?) >
Yes I would agree that the p doesn't add much, wheras hrtimer at least *rules out* the obvious process and posix.
I can't see a problem with timer and hrtimer myself.
Thanks, Nick
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |