[lm-sensors] Patches Doubt

[lm-sensors] Patches Doubt

[Marcelo Feitoza Parisi]

Hi there, I did not signed the list. Actually I am developing some
patches do kernel-janitors, and I run into a doubt.
I used only time_after() macro, but I was looking better to my patches
and I've found that maybe it would introduce bugs. I was thinking if it
is necessary to use time_after and time_before together, or something
like time_between.

Thank You
-- 
Marcelo Feitoza Parisi
marcelo@feitoza.com.br
http://marcelo.feitoza.com.br/
Key ID: 0x42A42C9A / Signed on: 25-04-2005 18:59
Key fingerprint: ADDE EEE7 57D9 FB45 2605 5A03 54DA 3079 42A4 2C9A
Key: http://marcelo.feitoza.com.br/GnuPG/chave_publica.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: atxp1.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 762 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20050711/384b0dc4/atxp1.bin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fscpos.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 662 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20050711/384b0dc4/fscpos.bin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gl520sm.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 710 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20050711/384b0dc4/gl520sm.bin

[lm-sensors] Patches Doubt

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Marcelo,

On 2005-07-11, Marcelo Feitoza Parisi wrote:
> I used only time_after() macro, but I was looking better to my patches
> and I've found that maybe it would introduce bugs. I was thinking if it
> is necessary to use time_after and time_before together, or something
> like time_between.

No, your three patches are correct. Unfortunately they will not apply
as-is due to the driver files being moved to a different place in the
source tree, but I'll take care about that.

Thanks for these cleanup patches, this is much appreciated.

--
Jean Delvare

[lm-sensors] Patches Doubt

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Marcelo,

> Someone has told me:
> Well, as long as last_updated is set to jiffies + something at some
> point, then using time_after() only is the correct solution.
> 
> That's why the patches are correct?

Yes, assuming "something" can be 0.

The primary reason why I say these patches are good is because all other
hardware monitoring drivers were recently modified the exact same way.

I have queued your patches locally and will send them up to Greg KH once
other pending patches have reached him.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare