[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.1.10.0807220729560.23410@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:35:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, arjan@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] schedule_timeout_range()
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@...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