Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262400AbVERXPN (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2005 19:15:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262399AbVERXPN (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2005 19:15:13 -0400 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56]:11489 "EHLO zcars04e.ca.nortel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262404AbVERXPH (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2005 19:15:07 -0400 Message-ID: <428BCC63.4070101@nortel.com> Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 17:14:43 -0600 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: Chris Friesen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040115 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Coywolf Qi Hunt CC: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] time_after_eq fix References: <20050518224415.GA5768@lovecn.org> In-Reply-To: <20050518224415.GA5768@lovecn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 671 Lines: 20 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/