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

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:22:32AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> For a timeout? Please get real.
> If you need more precision, use a dedicated timer API, but don't make the 
> general case more complex for the 99.99% of other users.

Struct timeout is just a struct timespec + a bit for absolute/relative +
a field for clock specification.  What's so complex about that?  It captures
everything needed to specify time, from here to the end of time.

Joe
-
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/

---

• References:
  • RE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
    • From: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <[email protected]>
  • RE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
    • From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
  • RE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
  • RE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
    • From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH 11/13] GFS: lock_harness module
• Next by Date: [PATCH 13/13] GFS: lock_dlm module
• Previous by thread: RE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
• Next by thread: Re: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]