i notice that a number of drivers duplicate a macro definition of
RUN_AT():
drivers/staging/vt6655/device.h:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies+(x))
drivers/net/irda/au1k_ir.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/hamachi.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/tulip/tulip.h:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/wireless/airo.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies+(x))
drivers/net/rrunner.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/bnx2.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/3c59x.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/fealnx.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
etc, etc. any value in just defining that once in jiffies.h and
letting everyone use that?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
On Sun, 15 May 2011 16:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> i notice that a number of drivers duplicate a macro definition of
> RUN_AT():
>
> drivers/staging/vt6655/device.h:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies+(x))
> drivers/net/irda/au1k_ir.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/hamachi.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/tulip/tulip.h:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/wireless/airo.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies+(x))
> drivers/net/rrunner.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/bnx2.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/3c59x.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/fealnx.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
>
> etc, etc. any value in just defining that once in jiffies.h and
> letting everyone use that?
Yes IMO.
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***