Re: [tipc-discussion] [net-next v2] tipc: support in-order name publication events
From: "Tuong Lien Tong" Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:01:17 +0700 > Hi David, > > The fact is we still want to keep it with that explicit meaning, so make the > code easy to understand. Yes, the 'time_after32()' or another macro can give > the same result but makes no sense in this particular scenario. Otherwise, > do you like something such as: > > #define publication_after(...) time_after32(...) Yes, that's fine. ___ tipc-discussion mailing list tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
Re: [tipc-discussion] [net-next v2] tipc: support in-order name publication events
Hi David,
The fact is we still want to keep it with that explicit meaning, so make the
code easy to understand. Yes, the 'time_after32()' or another macro can give
the same result but makes no sense in this particular scenario. Otherwise,
do you like something such as:
#define publication_after(...) time_after32(...)
BR/Tuong
-Original Message-
From: David Miller
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 1:14 PM
To: tuong.t.l...@dektech.com.au
Cc: jon.ma...@ericsson.com; ma...@donjonn.com; ying@windriver.com;
net...@vger.kernel.org; tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [net-next v2] tipc: support in-order name publication events
From: Tuong Lien
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 09:53:25 +0700
> +static inline int publication_after(struct publication *pa,
> + struct publication *pb)
> +{
> + return ((int)(pb->id - pa->id) < 0);
> +}
Juse use time32_after() et al. instead of reinventing the same exact
code please.
___
tipc-discussion mailing list
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
Re: [tipc-discussion] [net-next v2] tipc: support in-order name publication events
From: Tuong Lien
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 09:53:25 +0700
> +static inline int publication_after(struct publication *pa,
> + struct publication *pb)
> +{
> + return ((int)(pb->id - pa->id) < 0);
> +}
Juse use time32_after() et al. instead of reinventing the same exact
code please.
___
tipc-discussion mailing list
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
