On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 08:46, Xiao Liang shaw.leon@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 1:16 AM Donald Hunter donald.hunter@gmail.com 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).