Re: [patch] time_after_eq fix

[Chris Friesen]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/