Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> 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 [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]
