Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751588AbVJSWNF (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:13:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751591AbVJSWNF (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:13:05 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:3766 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751588AbVJSWNE (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:13:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:12:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Ingo Molnar cc: Tim Bird , Andrew Morton , tglx@linutronix.de, george@mvista.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com, paulmck@us.ibm.com, hch@infradead.org, oleg@tv-sign.ru Subject: Re: kernel/timer.c design (was: Re: ktimers subsystem) In-Reply-To: <20051019104938.GA30185@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <4353F936.3090406@am.sony.com> <20051017201330.GB8590@elte.hu> <20051018084655.GA28933@elte.hu> <20051019104938.GA30185@elte.hu> 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: 1829 Lines: 38 Hi, On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Whether the timer event is delivered or not is completely unimportant, > > as at some point the event has to be removed anyway, so that > > optimizing a timer for (non)delivery is complete nonsense. > > completely wrong! To explain this, let me first give you an introduction > to the design goals and implementation/optimization details of the > upstream kernel/timer.c code: I indeed made a mistake, thanks for pointing it out so elaborately. I'd like to mention something else here. It's rather bad style to start with "completely wrong!" and then continue to gloat with "let me give you an introduction", unless you intentionally want to insult me. Usually I would just ignore this, as it can happen to anyone, but I can find this style too often in your mails lately with the most obvious example of your "shut up or show code" comment. You're more busy trying to prove me wrong than adressing the actual issue. It never was my intention to discuss the kernel timer design (the one in timer.c you describe here), the original issue was and still is that "timer API" is a too generic term and you actually proved my point by using the terms timer and their timeout values very consistently in your description. It's possible I read this wrong, in that case I apologize already in advance, but please rethink the attitude you're showing, otherwise I'll reduce our conversion to a minimum. You're certainly have the more detailed knowledge in this area, but you don't have to show it off like this. 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/