Re: [patch] time_after_eq fix

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
Hello,

The two macros time_after and time_after_eq were added to do wrapping
correctly, but only time_after does it the right way, time_after_eq has
been wrong since the very beginning(v2.1.127, 07-Nov-1998).

-	 ((long)(a) - (long)(b) >= 0))
+	 ((long)(b) - (long)(a) <= 0))

Why does it matter which way you do it? In what circumstances does your code give a different answer?


Chris
-
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/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux