Re: [PATCH]: Flexible timeout infrastructure

[Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]


On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:27:45PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >Well, the question is always what is so special about your driver that
> >it doesn't benefit from beeing in a common library.  I've pulled more crap
> >out of individual drivers than I'd ever want to imagine, and because of
> >that I'm pretty much allergic against giving driver writers more control
> >then nessecary.
> 
> We are *not* talking about programming here, recognizing patterns
> and modularizing them.
> 
> We are talking about _recovery_.  And this method is OPTIONAL.

so do explain why the recovery method requires the midlayer to hand over
timer handling to the driver ? Why does it matter for *recovery* who started
the timer ???

Yes I can see the use for the driver to tell the timer handler code "eh please
give me some more time, I'm configuring stuff for a bit". But that doesn't
explain why it shouldn't be the midlayer that keeps in charge of timer
handling and solicits the advice from the driver like this..

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]