Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 May 2002 20:12:42 +0200 (CEST) | From | Tim Schmielau <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5.13 IDE 50 |
| |
> - Fix wrong usage of time_after in ide.c. This should cure the drive > seek > timeout problems some people where expierencing. This was clarified > to me by > Bartek, who apparently checked whatever the actual code is consistent > with the comments in front of it. Thank you Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz. > > I think now that we should have time_past(xxx) in <linux/timer.h>.
What would you suppose time_past(xxx) to do?
I agree this calls for some action to prevent confusion in the future. However, I'm not sure how a new macro could help here.
Andreas Dilger once did a patch to clarify the documentation of time_[before,after] a bit. (http://www.lib.uaa.alaska.edu/linux-kernel/archive/2001-Week-45/0075.html)
> @@ -1258,7 +1172,7 @@ > > /* This device still wants to remain idle. > */ > - if (drive->sleep && time_after(jiffies, drive->sleep)) > + if (drive->sleep && time_after(drive->sleep, jiffies)) > continue; > > /* Take this device, if there is no device choosen thus >
I think there is an implicit notational convention to have the volatile argument, i.e. jiffies, first. This would express that the condition evaluates as true *before* some fixed point in time:
if (drive->sleep && time_before(jiffies, drive->sleep))
Maybe sticking to this convention would suffice to keep the semantics of the condition obvious.
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/
| |