Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 5 May 2002 09:04:48 +0200 (CEST) | From | Tim Schmielau <> | Subject | Re: 2.5.13 IDE and preemptible kernel problems |
| |
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Hmm.. Something like > > #define timeout_expired(x) time_after(jiffies, (x)) > > migth indeed make sense. > > But I'm a lazy bastard. Is there some victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hhero who would > want to do the 'sed s/time_after(jiffies,/timeout_expired(/g' and verify > that it does the right thing and send it to me as a patch? > > The thing is, I wonder if it should be "time_after(jiffies,x)" or > "time_after_eq(jiffies,x)". There's a single-tick difference there.. >
If you allow a lazy victim to throw in some statistics first: ;-)
299 potential users preferring time_after_eq, and 160 voting for time_after (assuming use of !timeout_expired(x), too):
linux-2.5.13> find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep "time_before(*jiffies" /dev/null {} \; | wc -l 248 linux-2.5.13> find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep "time_before_eq( *jiffies" /dev/null {} \; | wc -l 20 linux-2.5.13> find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep "time_after( *jiffies" /dev/null {} \; | wc -l 140 linux-2.5.13> find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep "time_after_eq( *jiffies" /dev/null {} \; | wc -l 51
That probably means we need both, as something like timeout_expired(x+1) seems to call for new "off by one" errors.
Tim
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |