[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705211859410.3023@nanos>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 19:13:27 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....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, 16 May 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> > 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 :)
>
> If we keep the unusual *_timer() naming (rather than timer_*() as hrtimer
> has), we could use one of
>
> a) start_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long ms);
> b) restart_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long ms);
> c) mod_timer_ms(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long ms);
> mod_timer_sec(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long sec);
Please make new functions prefixed with timer_ and get rid of that old
interface completely. It's horrible.
timer_init()
timer_start(timer, ms, abs)
timer_start_on(timer, ms, abs, cpu)
timer_cancel(timer, sync)
Is all what's required to make up a new milliseconds based interface.
We really do not need all that mod/restart/ whatever variants. Where is the
point of those?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists