> On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Gerard Roudier wrote:
> >Even if not stated so, I think the 'next' field shall be considered as
> >part of timer implementation not available to applications. We may call
> Also using timer->expires directly would not be a good high level c++
> implementation. Gerard, do a c++ port of the linux kernel and I' ll agree
> with you. Right now my patch fix a _real_ C bug in C. I can agree that it
> would be better to use a bit more high level function (as I' ll do now and
> thanks for the suggestion) but I am very more worried to fix a real bug in
> a obvious simple and __safe__ way.
Given all the ugly C++ code I have had to suffer of, I will stick with
simple C for the moment.
Your timer_pending() primitive is much better. However, I am not sure such
a primitive is useful enough for the timer handling to be complexify in a
way that will allow to implement it safely. My approach is likely to
design things so that I will not need such a primitive.
Never require a feature that you donnot really need.
BTW, I know that your patch doesn't address any code of yours. So you may
not consider my remark against your proposal.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/