lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] time_after_eq fix
Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> 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).

> - ((long)(a) - (long)(b) >= 0))
> + ((long)(b) - (long)(a) <= 0))

Why does it matter which way you do it? In what circumstances does your
code give a different answer?


Chris
-
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: 2005-05-19 01:19    [W:0.051 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site