On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 08:46, Xiao Liang <shaw.leon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 1:16 AM Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > It's then a question of whether we need the repeat logic in poll_ntf() > > because it's always possible to use check_ntf() in your own repeat > > logic. Either way, I'd prefer not to call the parameter "max_retries" > > because semantically I don't think we are retrying - it is a count of > > how many times to repeat the poll. Thoughts? Should it be a "duration" > > parameter? > > Yes, a "duration" is better. The meaning of "retry" or "count" is not clear. > The original check_ntf() is good enough for the test case in this > series. Could you make the change, or do you prefer me to submit > another patch? I'm happy to make the change. I have prepared a patch which reverts most of 1bf70e6c3a53 and introduces poll_ntf(interval, duration). Jakub, is it okay to submit this as a single patch, or would you prefer me to actually revert 1bf70e6c3a53? (there's about 5 lines retained from the original patch).
