[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170516155132.GA1494@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 17:51:32 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Mark Gross <mark.gross@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: better timer interface
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This looks really nice, but what is the long-term plan for the interface?
> Do you expect that we will eventually change all 700+ users of timer_list
> to the new type, or do we keep both variants around indefinitely to avoid
> having to do mass-conversions?
I think we should eventually move everyone over, but it might take
some time.
> If we are going to touch them all in the end, we might want to think
> about other changes that could be useful here. The main one I have
> in mind would be moving away from 'jiffies + timeout' as the interface,
> and instead passing a relative number of milliseconds (or seconds)
> into a mod_timer() variant. This is what most drivers want anyway,
> and if we have both changes (callback argument and expiration
> time) in place, we modernize the API one driver at a time with both
> changes at once.
Yes, that sounds useful to me as well. As you said it's an independent
but somewhat related change. I can add it to my series, but I'll
need a suggestions for a good and short name. That already was the
hardest part for the setup side :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists