From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH] bug in ARP override timer near jiffies wrap Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:55:01 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040507145501.24fdd83a.davem@redhat.com> References: <20040507144000.7a57d76a.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: David Stevens In-Reply-To: Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 7 May 2004 14:51:13 -0700 David Stevens wrote: > David S. Miller wrote on 05/07/2004 02:40:00 PM: > > > David, do you realize that the existing formula is not only > > correct, but also covers a greater time space than the > > time_*() mechanisms do? > > ARG! you're right, of course-- I noticed only that they are > different and didn't think about it actually be right! :-) But note that the main point is also that your change is still correct. The only reason I know about the time space issue with these tests is that Alexey mentioned it to me when I was converting most of the TCP code over to use the time_*() macros. It is a policy decision whether it is more valuable to be more consistent or support the larger time space in tests here and there. I think it is more important to be consistent, so I'm going to apply your patch. And for ARP the larger time space would never matter anyways :-)