From: "Christopher Friesen" <cfriesen@nortel.com>
To: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, joe.korty@ccur.com, george@mvista.com,
johnstul@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:20:03 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43161F03.5090604@nortel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F989B1573A3A644BAB3920FBECA4D25A042B0053@orsmsx407>
Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
> In this structure,
> the user specifies:
> whether the time is absolute, or relative to 'now'.
> Timeout_sleep has a return argument, endtime, which is also in
> 'struct timeout' format. If the input time was relative, then
> it is converted to absolute and returned through this argument.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the endtime to be returned in the same
format (relative/absolute) as the original timer was specified? That
way an application can set a new timer for "timeout + SLEEPTIME" and on
average it will be reasonably accurate.
In the proposed method, for endtime to be useful the app needs to check
the current time, compare with the endtime, and figure out the delta.
If you're going to force the app to do all that work anyway, the app may
as well use absolute times.
Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-31 21:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-08-31 20:55 FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-08-31 21:15 ` Joe Korty
2005-08-31 21:20 ` Christopher Friesen [this message]
2005-08-31 21:34 ` Joe Korty
2005-08-31 22:06 ` Christopher Friesen
2005-08-31 22:10 ` Roman Zippel
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-09-01 11:59 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-09-01 12:55 ` Roman Zippel
2005-09-01 0:00 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-09-01 9:19 ` Roman Zippel
2005-09-01 13:48 ` Joe Korty
2005-09-01 15:18 ` Roman Zippel
2005-08-31 23:24 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-08-31 23:50 ` Roman Zippel
2005-09-01 0:08 ` Daniel Walker
2005-09-01 9:22 ` Roman Zippel
2005-09-01 13:53 ` Joe Korty
2005-09-01 13:50 ` Joe Korty
2005-09-01 14:32 ` Roman Zippel
2005-09-01 15:10 ` Daniel Walker
2005-09-01 15:11 ` Daniel Walker
2005-09-01 15:47 ` Joe Korty
2005-08-31 23:17 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-08-31 22:15 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-08-31 23:01 ` Roman Zippel
2005-08-31 22:11 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-08-31 23:06 ` Christopher Friesen
2005-08-23 1:13 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-05-18 20:15 Joe Korty
2005-07-29 1:52 ` FW: " Inaky Perez-Gonzalez
2005-08-22 22:56 ` john stultz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=43161F03.5090604@nortel.com \
--to=cfriesen@nortel.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com \
--cc=joe.korty@ccur.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox