Re: [RFC] A more general timeout specification

[Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@linux.intel.com>]

> George Anzinger <george@mvista.com> writes:

>> Andi Kleen wrote: ~>
>>  If you do a new structure for this I would suggest adding a
>> "precision" field (or the same with a different name). Basically
>> ....
> I think the accepted and standard way to do this is to use different
> "clock"s.  For example, in the HRT patch the clocks
> CLOCK_REALTIME_HR and CLOCK_MONOTONIC_HR are defined as high
> resolution clocks.

Andi, what is the kind of usage patterns you were envisioning? Do you
know of anyone that would have kind of a hard requirement for doing it
like you suggested?

George's argument makes sense to me, but I wonder if the audio people
would have a rationale against it?

-- 

Inaky