From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756169AbaICJjy (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 05:39:54 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:38925 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755930AbaICJjx (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 05:39:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 11:39:50 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Rustad, Mark D" Cc: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] semaphore: Resolve some shadow warnings Message-ID: <20140903093950.GE4783@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1409228366-7027-1-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <20140901120244.GI27892@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> <1409614914.2384.3.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> <176C5670-03A7-4003-925D-9C252A7A284F@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <176C5670-03A7-4003-925D-9C252A7A284F@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:16:23PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote: > > It would, but then it would be unclear as to what units the timeout > was in. I have no other objection to timeout, I was just trying to > preserve the meaning in the existing overloaded name. The "n" to me > suggests a number and, if anything, number of jiffies conveys a more > precise meaning than simply jiffies did. Use a comment for the unit. If you look you'll find tons of 'timeout' variables that measure in jiffies (and others of course).