Re: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
In this structure,
the user specifies:
    whether the time is absolute, or relative to 'now'.


Timeout_sleep has a return argument, endtime, which is also in
'struct timeout' format.  If the input time was relative, then
it is converted to absolute and returned through this argument.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the endtime to be returned in the same format (relative/absolute) as the original timer was specified? That way an application can set a new timer for "timeout + SLEEPTIME" and on average it will be reasonably accurate.

In the proposed method, for endtime to be useful the app needs to check the current time, compare with the endtime, and figure out the delta. If you're going to force the app to do all that work anyway, the app may as well use absolute times.

Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]
  Powered by Linux