On Nov 30, 2005, at 22:32, Roman Zippel wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
but what we'd like to achieve as an end-result is the clear
separation of 'timer' vs. 'timeout' APIs. Our proposed end result
would be to have 'struct ktimer' for timers, and 'struct ktimeout'
for timeouts.
Sorry, but calling it "ktimeout" would be completely wrong.
"timeout" is a rather imprecise term, which can have different
meanings depending on the context, e.g. any timer usually has a
"timeout value", but what is meant here is a "timeout timer". So
basically this is supposed to be about "timer" vs "timeout timer".
[snip lengthy discussion]
If I recall correctly, this whole naming mess has been discussed to
death before, with the result that almost everybody but Roman thought
the names were perfectly clear such that a timer is _expected_ to
expire and a timeout is not, therefore timers should be optimized for
add=>run=>expire and timeouts optimized for add=>run=>remove.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/E/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ ULBX*++++(+++)>$ P++++(+++)>$ L++++
(+++)>$ !E- W+++(++) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP
+ t+(+++) 5 X R? !tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+(++) D+++ G e>++++$ h*(+)>++$ r
%(--) !y?-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
