lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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..

Linus

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans