[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:0.041 / U:27.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site