Re: [Lcd4linux-devel] lcd4linux: timers and timer groups

[Marcus M. <cod...@gm...>]

Hi @all,

[Michael Reinelt]
> A (double) linked list has several memory objects. As many timers
> are "one-shot timers" they may be created and  destroyed very
> regularly. This would lead to lots of malloc()/free() calls.

But you do not have to destroy unused timers.

If you'd had two timer list called 'tl_active' and 'tl_passive' you
could hang passive timers to 'tl_passive' and 'add_timer' could take
the first element of 'tl_passive' update its values an hang it to
'tl_active'.

The list would take a little more memory (next pointer, tl_active,
tl_passive) but it would be faster to find a free slot and you didn't
have to realloc all timers if you had to create one more
(tl_passive == NULL).


[Michael Reinelt]
> I think having both timers and timer groups is a nuisance.

I agree: The two are to redundate to not be merged.
(But I might lack the overview to see all features.)

As Martin discribed the grouping makes sense. But couldn't this
be already done in the timer.c? (double linked list)


[Mattia Jona-Lasinio]
> [...] I also find redundant the distinction between
> one-shot timer and continuous timer. All timers should be one-shot. If
> a timer wants to fire countinuously then it has to resubmit itself in
> the callback function. I think that the whole timer framework would
> benefit from this simplification.

I think there should be only active (continuous) and passive timers
and the callback should change its properties (or set it passive)
instead of shot it ones and 'build' a new one.


Regards

Marcus
-- 
NEU: FreePhone 3-fach-Flat mit kostenlosem Smartphone!                                  
Jetzt informieren: http://mobile.1und1.de/?ac=OM.PW.PW003K20328T7073a