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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 16 May 2011 08:21:53 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...shcourse.ca>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: any value in centralizing a defn of "RUN_AT()"?

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 ***
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ