Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 4 May 2002 19:09:02 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |