RE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification

[Roman Zippel]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/