From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs/autofs: Use time_before, time_before_eq, etc. Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:48:35 -0800 Message-ID: <477293F3.60304@zytor.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Julia Lawall Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Julia Lawall wrote: > From: Julia Lawall > > 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:48:35 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs/autofs: Use time_before, time_before_eq, etc. Message-Id: <477293F3.60304@zytor.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Julia Lawall Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Julia Lawall wrote: > From: Julia Lawall > > 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