On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:58:56AM -0800, 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 chan
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
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 08:08 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 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(j
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->la
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
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 a
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'),
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Julia Lawall wrote:
> > From: Julia Lawall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > The functions time_before, time_before_eq, time_after, and time_after_eq
> > are more robust for comparing jiffies against other values.
> >
>
> More robust, how? You already alm
Julia Lawall wrote:
From: Julia Lawall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The functions time_before, time_before_eq, time_after, and time_after_eq
are more robust for comparing jiffies against other values.
More robust, how? You already almost introduced a bug here...
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from t
From: Julia Lawall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The functions time_before, time_before_eq, time_after, and time_after_eq
are more robust for comparing jiffies against other values.
A simplified version of the semantic patch making this change is as follows:
(http://www.emn.fr/x-info/coccinelle/)
//
@ ch
10 matches
Mail list logo