In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:08:53 +0100 (CET)),
Julia Lawall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > Ray Lee wrote:
> > > On Dec 26, 2007 7:21 AM, Julia Lawall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > - if (jiffies - ent->last_usage < timeout)
> > > > + if (time_before(jiffies, ent->last_usage + timeout))
> > >
> > > I don't think this is a safe change? subtraction is always safe (if
> > > you think about it as 'distance'), addition isn't always safe unless
> > > you know the range. The time_before macro will expand that out to
> > > (effectively):
> > >
> > > if ( (long)(ent->last_usage + timeout) - (long)(jiffies) < 0 )
> > >
> > > which seems to introduce an overflow condition in the first term.
> > >
> > > Dunno, I may be wrong (happens often), but at the very least what
> > > you've transformed it into is no longer obviously correct, and so it's
> > > not a great change.
> >
> > Indeed. The bottom form will have overflow issues at time
> > jiffies_wraparound/2, whereas the top form will have overflow issues only
> > near
> > jiffies_wraparound/1.
>
> OK, so it seems like it is not such a good idea.
>
> There are, however, over 200 files that contain calls to the various time
> functions that follow this pattern, eg:
>
> arch/arm/kernel/ecard.c:563
> if (!last || time_after(jiffies, last + 5*HZ)) {
>
> Perhaps they should be coverted to use a subtraction as well?
No, use time_after() etc., unless you have very good reason not using them.
And above is not a good reason at all.
Frequency is not a problem. If we have longer timeout which could
result in wrap-around, we must use another method, e.g. 64bit jiffies,
anyway.
--yoshfuji
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
