Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932354AbVJQWlt (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:41:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932363AbVJQWlZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:41:25 -0400 Received: from science.horizon.com ([192.35.100.1]:22320 "HELO science.horizon.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932360AbVJQWlO (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:41:14 -0400 Date: 17 Oct 2005 18:41:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20051017224113.23667.qmail@science.horizon.com> From: linux@horizon.com To: linux@horizon.com, zippel@linux-m68k.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ktimers subsystem 2.6.14-rc2-kt5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 924 Lines: 20 >> I have to disagree. Once you grasp the desirability of having two kinds >> of timers, one optimized for the case where it does expire, and one >> optimized for the case where it is aborted or rescheduled before its >> expiration time, the timer/timeout terminology seems quite intuitive >> to me. > Thank you, that's exactly the confusion, I'd like to avoid. Er... *what* confusion? I wasn't in the slightest bit confused when I wrote that, and re-reading it very carefully, I can't see how it could be interpreted in a way that is in any way confusing. There's no more confusion in that paragraph than there is lemon meringue. The only thing confusing is your response. - 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/