Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | "Coywolf Qi Hunt" <> | Date | Thu, 19 May 2005 06:44:15 +0800 | Subject | [patch] time_after_eq fix |
| |
Hello,
The two macros time_after and time_after_eq were added to do wrapping correctly, but only time_after does it the right way, time_after_eq has been wrong since the very beginning(v2.1.127, 07-Nov-1998). Now this patch fixes it.
And I don't agree with the the original code comment. I don't think this is gcc's fault. If it is "a good compiler" or "a really good compiler", trying to be smarter than human, it wouldn't still be a C compiler. So I'd like it be removed.
Signed-off-by: Coywolf Qi Hunt <coywolf@lovecn.org> ---
jiffies.h | 6 ++---- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff -pruN 2.6.12-rc4-mm2/include/linux/jiffies.h 2.6.12-rc4-mm2-cy/include/linux/jiffies.h --- 2.6.12-rc4-mm2/include/linux/jiffies.h 2005-03-03 17:12:13.000000000 +0800 +++ 2.6.12-rc4-mm2-cy/include/linux/jiffies.h 2005-05-19 05:32:52.000000000 +0800 @@ -102,9 +102,7 @@ static inline u64 get_jiffies_64(void) * * time_after(a,b) returns true if the time a is after time b. * - * Do this with "<0" and ">=0" to only test the sign of the result. A - * good compiler would generate better code (and a really good compiler - * wouldn't care). Gcc is currently neither. + * Do this with "<0" and "<=0" to only test the sign of the result. */ #define time_after(a,b) \ (typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \ @@ -115,7 +113,7 @@ static inline u64 get_jiffies_64(void) #define time_after_eq(a,b) \ (typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \ typecheck(unsigned long, b) && \ - ((long)(a) - (long)(b) >= 0)) + ((long)(b) - (long)(a) <= 0)) #define time_before_eq(a,b) time_after_eq(b,a) /* - 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/
| |