From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753353AbYGWLtF (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:49:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751390AbYGWLsz (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:48:55 -0400 Received: from mail-in-11.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.51]:43715 "EHLO mail-in-11.arcor-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751223AbYGWLsy (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:48:54 -0400 From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> Subject: Re: [RFC] schedule_timeout_range() To: Nick Piggin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , arjan@infradead.org, David Woodhouse Reply-To: 7eggert@gmx.de Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:52:06 +0200 References: User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit Message-Id: X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-Information: See www.mailscanner.info for information X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-From: 7eggert@gmx.de Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nick Piggin wrote: > The only thing I dislike about explicit times is that when a driver or > someone doesn't _really_ know how much to specify. Do you say 10s, 100s? > It shouldn't be arbitrary, but we should have a few constants I think. You'd replace "Should I use 10 or 100 seconds?" with "Should I use TIMEOUT_10_SEC or TIMEOUT_100_SEC?", while replacing "I want 40 seconds!" with "Danmed, I want 40 seconds, but that's not an option!". BTW: If you don't know about which timeout you should use, you should think about mowing the lawn instead. ¢¢