From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3wS24S03wvzDqb1 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 01:51:35 +1000 (AEST) Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 17:51:32 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Thomas Gleixner , Tejun Heo , linuxppc-dev , Mark Gross , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-s390 Subject: Re: RFC: better timer interface Message-ID: <20170516155132.GA1494@lst.de> References: <20170516114812.10660-1-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 :)