Hi Robert On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > sure, that's what i thought as well, but depending on the semantics > of how timers work, can't you imagine an implementation that checks > first and realizes right away that you're *already* at that time and > just invokes the handler immediately? i mean, are people making that > kind of call to mod_timer() *assuming* that there will be a time lag, > even if it's a tiny one. that strikes me as a dangerous assumption to > make, don't you think? this is the point where I think sometimes we can't interpret what the original code developer(s) really wanted to do just by looking at the codes. It could be "that way", "this way" or none of both. In short word, we have less justifications > the only other reason i can think of for the above is that someone > wants to call a handler *right now* or as soon as possible, but wants > to continue execution anyway. in other words, it just happens to be a > way to asynchronously invoke a handler -- it just *looks* weird. in some degree, I tend to agree on your above "speculation". regards, Mulyadi. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
