Re: [PATCH] ktimers subsystem 2.6.14-rc2-kt5

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:

> That being said, I'll confess that I've largely ignored this discussion in
> the hope that things would get sorted out.  Seems that this won't be
> happening and as Roman's opinions carry weight I do intend to solicit a
> (brief!) summary of his objections from him when the patch comes round
> again.  Sorry.

It's rather simple:
- "timer API" vs "timeout API": I got absolutely no acknowlegement that 
this might be a little confusing and in consequence "process timer" may be 
a better name.
- I pointed out various (IMO) unnecessary complexities, which were rather 
quickly brushed off e.g. with a need for further (not closer specified) 
cleanups.
- resolution handling: at what resolution should/does the kernel work and 
what do we report to user space. The spec allows multiple interpretations 
and I have a hard time to get at least one coherent interpretation out of 
Thomas.

Maybe I'm the only one who found Thomas answers a little superficial, but 
as this is a central kernel subsystem I think it deserves a closer look 
and everytime I tried to poke a little deeper I got nothing.

bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/