On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 23:28 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote: > On 02/07/2013 23:10, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 12:49 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote: > >> Time in range will fail safely if we move to a different cpu with an > >> extremely large clock skew. > >> Add time_in_range64() and convert lls to use it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Eliezer Tamir <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> v1->v2 > >> fixed double call to sched_clock() in can_poll_ll(), checkpatchisms > > >> +#define time_in_range64(a, b, c) \ > >> + (time_after_eq64(a, b) && \ > >> + time_before_eq64(a, c)) > > [...] > > > > Why not make this an inline function, so the caller doesn't need to > > worry about repeated evaluation? > > I was following the conventions in jiffies.h > (well almost, I did add a few spaces to make checkpatch happy)
I see, but now you have a good reason to change that convention. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
