On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:39PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > If we keep the unusual *_timer() naming (rather than timer_*() as hrtimer > has), we could use one of > > a) start_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long ms); > b) restart_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long ms); > c) mod_timer_ms(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long ms); > mod_timer_sec(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long sec); > > The first is slightly shorter but conflicts with three files that use > the same name for a local function name. The third one fits > well with the existing interfaces and provides both millisecond > and second versions, I'd probably go with that. Yeah, I'd take c) as well. I'll give it a spin. > We could consider even passing a default interval as another > argument to prepare_timer(), and using that in add_timer(), > but that would in those cases that have a constant interval > (maybe about half of the users from) and would be a bit surprising > to readers that are only familiar with the existing interfaces. That seems rather ugly to me. > One final option would be a larger-scale replacement of > the API by mirroring the hrtimer style where possible while > staying compatible with the existing calls, e.g. timer_prepare(), > timer_add_expires(), timer_start(), ... I'd chose timer_* for an entirely new API, but at this point this seems a bit too much churn to me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
