Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932990Ab3GBU2I (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2013 16:28:08 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:5516 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932117Ab3GBU2E (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2013 16:28:04 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,983,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="364338983" Message-ID: <51D337D0.1080901@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 23:28:00 +0300 From: Eliezer Tamir User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Hutchings CC: David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, willemb@google.com, erdnetdev@gmail.com, andi@firstfloor.org, hpa@zytor.com, devel-lists@codyps.com, eliezer@tamir.org.il Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: convert lls to use time_in_range() References: <20130628125918.14419.36214.stgit@ladj378.jer.intel.com> <20130701.140833.1705666564717621661.davem@davemloft.net> <51D2919F.7050007@linux.intel.com> <51D29329.4060004@linux.intel.com> <51D2A246.3000705@linux.intel.com> <1372795835.1919.14.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> In-Reply-To: <1372795835.1919.14.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 982 Lines: 26 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 >> --- >> 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) -- 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/