Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750902AbVIAJUe (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 05:20:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750886AbVIAJUe (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 05:20:34 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:63363 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750830AbVIAJUd (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 05:20:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:19:51 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" cc: akpm@osdl.org, joe.korty@ccur.com, george@mvista.com, johnstul@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1313 Lines: 35 Hi, On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote: > Hmm, I cannot think of more ways to specify a timeout than how > long I want to wait (relative) or until when (absolute) and which > is the reference clock. And they don't seem broken to me, common > sense, in any case. Do you have any examples? You still didn't explain what's the point in choosing different clock sources for a _timeout_. > Different versions of the same function that do relative, absolute. > If I keep going that way, the reason becomes: > > sys_mutex_lock > sys_mutex_lock_timed_relative_clock_realtime > sys_mutex_lock_timed_absolute_clock_realtime > sys_mutex_lock_timed_relative_clock_monotonic > sys_mutex_lock_timed_absolute_clock_monotonic > sys_mutex_lock_timed_relative_clock_monotonic_highres > sys_mutex_lock_timed_absolute_clock_monotonic_highres Hiding it behind an API makes it better? You didn't answer my other question, let's assume we add such a timeout structure, what's wrong with converting it to kernel time (which would automatically validate it). bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/