On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 10:10 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Manuel Schölling
> > <manuel.schoell...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > To be future-proof and for better readability the time comparisons are
> > > modified
> > > to use time_before() instead of plain, error-prone math.
> []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/ioat/dma_v2.c b/drivers/dma/ioat/dma_v2.c
> []
> > > @@ -735,7 +735,8 @@ int ioat2_check_space_lock(struct ioat2_dma_chan
> > > *ioat, int num_descs)
> > > * called under bh_disabled so we need to trigger the timer
> > > * event directly
> > > */
> > > - if (jiffies > chan->timer.expires && timer_pending(&chan->timer))
> > > {
> > > + if (time_before(chan->timer.expires, jiffies)
> > > + && timer_pending(&chan->timer)) {
> > > struct ioatdma_device *device = chan->device;
> >
> > Thanks, let's use time_is_before_jiffies() for this cleanup... I'll
> > fix up and apply.
>
> There are thousands of uses of time_before( and time_after(
> with jiffies, and 6 years after being added, a little more
> than a dozen or so of time_is_[before|after]_jiffies.
>
> I also think the "time_is_[before|after]_jiffies" macros are
> not very well named.
>
> Using them is more text than using jiffies directly.
> There is a small benefit in argument ordering correctness.
>
> time_after(jiffies, foo)
> time_is_after_jiffies(foo)
>
> I'd rather just drop jiffies altogether
> time_is_after(foo)
> or maybe add and use
> jiffies_is_after(foo)
jiffies_is_after is very understandable. The others seem to require some
thought.
julia
