Re: [RFC] schedule_timeout_range()

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Tuesday 2008-07-22 06:58, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>> > In practice, they'll almost always get called before that maximum time
>> > expires -- that's the whole _point_, of course. But we can't _invent_
>> > that maximum in generic code; that's really up to the caller.
>> 
>> Not a maximum, but just an "I don't know... a lot?" define. But yeah
>> I guess there aren't too many good reasons for that.
>
>I'd really like to avoid it. It puts the responsibility for coming up
>with a number a _long_ way from where it should be, in the individual
>caller.

Wait for drivers to make use of the range timer, hear their requirements
out, then can make a better-informed decision about the preciseness
of "a lot[?]". Maybe it turns out that drivers only ever need a range
like r={20msec, Infinity} because, say, a drive's status just remains
available anytime after 20msec until (finally) polled.
--
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/