[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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
    linux-2.5.13> find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep "time_before_eq( *jiffies"
    /dev/null {} \; | wc -l
    linux-2.5.13> find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep "time_after( *jiffies"
    /dev/null {} \; | wc -l
    linux-2.5.13> find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep "time_after_eq( *jiffies"
    /dev/null {} \; | wc -l

    That probably means we need both, as something like
    timeout_expired(x+1) seems to call for new "off by one" errors.


    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:0.023 / U:0.268 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site