| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:52:06 +0200 From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, arjan@...radead.org, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] schedule_timeout_range() Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote: > The only thing I dislike about explicit times is that when a driver or > someone doesn't _really_ know how much to specify. Do you say 10s, 100s? > It shouldn't be arbitrary, but we should have a few constants I think. You'd replace "Should I use 10 or 100 seconds?" with "Should I use TIMEOUT_10_SEC or TIMEOUT_100_SEC?", while replacing "I want 40 seconds!" with "Danmed, I want 40 seconds, but that's not an option!". BTW: If you don't know about which timeout you should use, you should think about mowing the lawn instead. ΒΆΒΆ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists