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 [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]
