Re: [patch 00/43] ktimer reworked

[Andrew Morton]

Russell King <rmk+lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> rmk, also a native English speaker, agrees with Ray, Thomas and Ingo.
>  As does dictionary.reference.com's definitions of timeout and timer:
> 
>   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.

Well timer_lists get around the problem quite neatly by handling both
situations.  In a way which has been learned by thousands of developers
over many years.

The whole concept of separating "timers" from "timeouts" seems a step
backward to me.  A large one.   Why was it done, and can it be undone?
-
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/