2005-09-01 09:22:53

by Roman Zippel

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: RE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification

Hi,

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Daniel Walker wrote:

> > What "more versions" are you talking about? When you convert a user time
> > to kernel time you can automatically validate it and later you can use
> > standard kernel APIs, so you don't have to add even more API bloat.
>
> What's kernel time? Are you talking about jiffies? The whole point of
> multiple clocks is to allow for different degrees of precision.

For a timeout? Please get real.
If you need more precision, use a dedicated timer API, but don't make the
general case more complex for the 99.99% of other users.

bye, Roman


2005-09-01 13:54:05

by Joe Korty

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:22:32AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> For a timeout? Please get real.
> If you need more precision, use a dedicated timer API, but don't make the
> general case more complex for the 99.99% of other users.

Struct timeout is just a struct timespec + a bit for absolute/relative +
a field for clock specification. What's so complex about that? It captures
everything needed to specify time, from here to the end of time.

Joe