[PATCH] gdm72xx: use time_before()

[PATCH] gdm72xx: use time_before()

[Manuel Schölling]

To be future-proof and for better readability the time comparisons are
modified to use time_before() instead of plain, error-prone math.

Signed-off-by: Manuel Schölling <manuel.schoelling@gmx.de>
---
 drivers/staging/gdm72xx/gdm_usb.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/gdm_usb.c b/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/gdm_usb.c
index 20539d8..9ddf8f5 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/gdm_usb.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/gdm_usb.c
@@ -730,7 +730,7 @@ static int k_mode_thread(void *arg)
 			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&k_lock, flags2);
 
 			expire = jiffies + K_WAIT_TIME;
-			while (jiffies < expire)
+			while (time_before(jiffies, expire))
 				schedule_timeout(K_WAIT_TIME);
 
 			spin_lock_irqsave(&rx->lock, flags);
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm72xx: use time_before()

[Greg KH]

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 03:08:59PM +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
> To be future-proof and for better readability the time comparisons are
> modified to use time_before() instead of plain, error-prone math.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manuel Schölling <manuel.schoelling@gmx.de>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/gdm72xx/gdm_usb.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

This patch doesn't apply, can you please refresh it against my latest
tree and resend?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm72xx: use time_before()

[Manuel Schoelling]

On So, 2014-05-25 at 11:14 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 03:08:59PM +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
> > To be future-proof and for better readability the time comparisons are
> > modified to use time_before() instead of plain, error-prone math.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Manuel Schölling <manuel.schoelling@gmx.de>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/gdm72xx/gdm_usb.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> This patch doesn't apply, can you please refresh it against my latest
> tree and resend?
That's weird. I pulled the lastest master from Linus and rebased the
patch, but no modification of my patch was required (latest commit
before my patch to that file was
8943a92fc257c439ffe55fb0f9896be57c58c56b according to my repo). 

Maybe you have a more recent version than Linus?

Bye,

Manuel

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm72xx: use time_before()

[Greg KH]

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 08:24:33PM +0200, Manuel Schoelling wrote:
> On So, 2014-05-25 at 11:14 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 03:08:59PM +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
> > > To be future-proof and for better readability the time comparisons are
> > > modified to use time_before() instead of plain, error-prone math.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Manuel Schölling <manuel.schoelling@gmx.de>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/gdm72xx/gdm_usb.c |    2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > This patch doesn't apply, can you please refresh it against my latest
> > tree and resend?
> That's weird. I pulled the lastest master from Linus and rebased the
> patch, but no modification of my patch was required (latest commit
> before my patch to that file was
> 8943a92fc257c439ffe55fb0f9896be57c58c56b according to my repo). 
> 
> Maybe you have a more recent version than Linus?


I have a much different version from Linus, with a few thousand patches
added, otherwise how would I be able to queue up stuff to go to Linus
for the next kernel release?  :)

For the staging patches, either use the linux-next tree (which you
should use for all kernel development), or my staging.git tree, and the
staging-next branch on git.kernel.org, which is what gets pulled into
linux-next every week-day.

If you have more questions about this, take a look at
Documentation/development-process/  it should explain how patches move
to Linus and why working against Linus's tree isn't going to get you
very far.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm72xx: use time_before()

[Manuel Schoelling]

On So, 2014-05-25 at 11:33 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 08:24:33PM +0200, Manuel Schoelling wrote:
> > On So, 2014-05-25 at 11:14 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 03:08:59PM +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
> > > > To be future-proof and for better readability the time comparisons are
> > > > modified to use time_before() instead of plain, error-prone math.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Manuel Schölling <manuel.schoelling@gmx.de>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/staging/gdm72xx/gdm_usb.c |    2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > This patch doesn't apply, can you please refresh it against my latest
> > > tree and resend?
> > That's weird. I pulled the lastest master from Linus and rebased the
> > patch, but no modification of my patch was required (latest commit
> > before my patch to that file was
> > 8943a92fc257c439ffe55fb0f9896be57c58c56b according to my repo). 
> > 
> > Maybe you have a more recent version than Linus?
> 
> 
> I have a much different version from Linus, with a few thousand patches
> added, otherwise how would I be able to queue up stuff to go to Linus
> for the next kernel release?  :)
> 
> For the staging patches, either use the linux-next tree (which you
> should use for all kernel development), or my staging.git tree, and the
> staging-next branch on git.kernel.org, which is what gets pulled into
> linux-next every week-day.
> 
> If you have more questions about this, take a look at
> Documentation/development-process/  it should explain how patches move
> to Linus and why working against Linus's tree isn't going to get you
> very far.
Ok, thanks for your answer, Greg. I will use the linux-next tree and send you a new version of that patch today.

Bye,

Manuel

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h