Re: [patch][looking for maintainers] jiffies compare fixups

From: Tim Schmielau (tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de)
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 - 14:28:27 EST


On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Horst von Brand wrote:

> Tim Schmielau <tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de> said:
> > At the end of December, I made a patch to fix comparisons of the jiffies
> > counter that would break at jiffies wraparound.
>
> I think you should just forward the remaining bits to Marcelo directly.
>

Yes, I think I'll do so for 2.4.19pre.

[...]
> > - if (led_active && jiffies > led_next_time) {
> > + if (led_active && jiffies > time_after(jiffies, led_next_time)) {
[...]
> This hunk is surely wrong.

Thank you for spotting this. Obviously there are times at night when it is
even too late for simple search&replace like changes.

Also thanks for your comments on the busy-waiting loops. I stumbled
across them, too, but decided to first do the uncontroversial time_before/
time_after fix. I think I'll do another run on this low-latency
(well, less-horrendous latency:-) stuff later.

Tim

-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:14 EST