[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.5.13 IDE and preemptible kernel problems

    On Sun, 5 May 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote:
    > OK, lest's make a deal you do the following and - realize
    > immediately that there is a need for single argument
    > time_past() or whatever and I turn spinlock debugging on :-).

    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..


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.041 / U:9.352 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site