Re: 2.5.13 IDE and preemptible kernel problems

[Tim Schmielau]

On Sat, 4 May 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Hmm.. Something like
> 
> 	#define timeout_expired(x)	time_after(jiffies, (x))
> 
> migth indeed make sense.
> 
> But I'm a lazy bastard. Is there some victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hhero who would
> want to do the 'sed s/time_after(jiffies,/timeout_expired(/g' and verify
> that it does the right thing and send it to me as a patch?
> 
> The thing is, I wonder if it should be "time_after(jiffies,x)" or
> "time_after_eq(jiffies,x)". There's a single-tick difference there..
> 

If you allow a lazy victim to throw in some statistics first:  ;-)

299 potential users preferring time_after_eq, and 160 voting for 
time_after (assuming use of !timeout_expired(x), too):

linux-2.5.13> find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep "time_before(*jiffies"
 /dev/null {} \; | wc -l
    248
linux-2.5.13> find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep "time_before_eq( *jiffies" 
 /dev/null {} \; | wc -l
     20
linux-2.5.13> find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep "time_after( *jiffies" 
 /dev/null {} \; | wc -l
    140
linux-2.5.13> find ./ -name "*.[ch]" -exec grep "time_after_eq( *jiffies" 
 /dev/null {} \; | wc -l
     51

That probably means we need both, as something like 
timeout_expired(x+1) seems to call for new "off by one" errors.

Tim