Re: [patch 00/43] ktimer reworked

[Roman Zippel]

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/