Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932501AbVLAVwq (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:52:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932503AbVLAVwq (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:52:46 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:8913 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932501AbVLAVwp (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:52:45 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:51:39 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar Cc: rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk, ray-gmail@madrabbit.org, zippel@linux-m68k.org, mrmacman_g4@mac.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, george@mvista.com, johnstul@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [patch 00/43] ktimer reworked Message-Id: <20051201135139.3d1c10df.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20051201211933.GA25142@elte.hu> References: <1133395019.32542.443.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <23CA09D3-4C11-4A4B-A5C6-3C38FA9C203D@mac.com> <2c0942db0512010822x1ae20622obf224ce9728e83f8@mail.gmail.com> <20051201165144.GC31551@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20051201122455.4546d1da.akpm@osdl.org> <20051201211933.GA25142@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1602 Lines: 34 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > we could merge the two by driving 'timeouts' via ktimers too - but there > would be some unavoidable overhead to things like the TCP stack. But > ktimers cannot be merged into timeouts, that's sure. I think you guys have an advantage over me because you've been discussing and thinking about this terminology for months. IOW, your lips are moving but all I hear is blah, blah, blah ;) For instance, when Kyle came out with his one-sentence description of timers versus timeouts, I thought he had them backwards. Only apparently he didn't. So either it's all confusing, or I'm dumb, or both. I can evade investigation of that by claiming that we should seek something which is unconfusing to even dumb people. We have timer_lists. But you say they don't suit precision timers. Fine. So why cannot we call the new precision timers something like "precision timers" and avoid this semantic confusion over timeouts versus timers? IOW: leave timer_lists alone. Just add the needed new subsystem and use it. I guess old-timers can mentally do s/ktimeout/timer_list/ whenever they come across the danged thing, but it's a bit painful. If we called them "timer_list" and "hrtimer", things would be much clearer. Plus that's a description of what they *are*, rather than of how we expect them to be applied. - 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/