[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:37:02 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
cc: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Cochran <richard.cochran@...cron.at>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 28/28] posix clocks: Introduce dynamic clocks
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 01:49:47PM -0800, john stultz wrote:
> > I sort of worry about the naming collision with the term posix-clock, as
> > this is just one type of posix clock (I suspect most folks think of a
> > posix clock as the clockid passed to the existing posix api).
> >
> > Could we maybe use posix-dynclock or posix-fdclock or something? I know
> > its already been changed from clkdev, so sorry for being finicky here
> > and not catching this earlier.
>
> A rose by any other name...
>
> I agree that naming (even internal APIs) is important and have no
> objection to changing the name. I did spend a bit of time considering
> various alternatives, and now I'm out of ideas.
>
> So, please do change the name if you have a better one.
We have a clear distinction between posix-timers and those new
posix-clocks. Adding some artificial "fd", "dyn" or whatever will not
make it much better.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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