From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eliezer Tamir Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: convert lls to use time_in_range() Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 23:28:00 +0300 Message-ID: <51D337D0.1080901@linux.intel.com> References: <20130628125918.14419.36214.stgit@ladj378.jer.intel.com> <20130701.140833.1705666564717621661.davem@davemloft.net> <51D2919F.7050007@linux.intel.com> <51D29329.4060004@linux.intel.com> <51D2A246.3000705@linux.intel.com> <1372795835.1919.14.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, willemb@google.com, erdnetdev@gmail.com, andi@firstfloor.org, hpa@zytor.com, devel-lists@codyps.com, eliezer@tamir.org.il To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1372795835.1919.14.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 02/07/2013 23:10, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 12:49 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote: >> Time in range will fail safely if we move to a different cpu with an >> extremely large clock skew. >> Add time_in_range64() and convert lls to use it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eliezer Tamir >> --- >> v1->v2 >> fixed double call to sched_clock() in can_poll_ll(), checkpatchisms >> +#define time_in_range64(a, b, c) \ >> + (time_after_eq64(a, b) && \ >> + time_before_eq64(a, c)) > [...] > > Why not make this an inline function, so the caller doesn't need to > worry about repeated evaluation? I was following the conventions in jiffies.h (well almost, I did add a few spaces to make checkpatch happy)