linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] add time_now_after and other macros which compare with jiffies

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 9 Mar 2008 09:58:02 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Dave Young" <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
Cc:	"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@...urebad.de>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] add time_now_after and other macros which compare
 with jiffies

> >  > +/* time_now_before_eq(a) return true if now (jiffies) is before or equal to a */
> >  > +#define time_now_before_eq(a) time_before_eq(jiffies, a)
> >
> >  How about even more obvious names like time_is_past(), time_is_future(),
> >  ...?
> 
> Thanks for comment.
> 
> Then how do we name the _eq version?  IMHO, the time_now_* is enough.

Why do you even need them. I don't see the point of *any* of these extra
macros as they simply obfuscate code and hide what is actually going on.
The initial macros were added because of the type safety and correct
comparison rules being complex. They have a purpose.

Even if you want these you can use !time_future() if you don't want the
_eq variants. Generally speaking drivers should be using timers not
polled loops, and most of our loops comparing with jiffies want removing.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/