[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1372795835.1919.14.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:10:35 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <willemb@...gle.com>,
<erdnetdev@...il.com>, <andi@...stfloor.org>, <hpa@...or.com>,
<devel-lists@...yps.com>, <eliezer@...ir.org.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: convert lls to use time_in_range()
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 <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> v1->v2
> fixed double call to sched_clock() in can_poll_ll(), checkpatchisms
[...]
> --- a/include/linux/jiffies.h
> +++ b/include/linux/jiffies.h
> @@ -139,6 +139,10 @@ static inline u64 get_jiffies_64(void)
> ((__s64)(a) - (__s64)(b) >= 0))
> #define time_before_eq64(a,b) time_after_eq64(b,a)
>
> +#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?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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