[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110516082153.b55d3f85.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
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