On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:37:10 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03 2005, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:54:48 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 11_ide_drive_sleeping_fix.patch > > > > > > > > ide_drive_t.sleeping field added. 0 in sleep field used to > > > > indicate inactive sleeping but because 0 is a valid jiffy > > > > value, though slim, there's a chance that something can go > > > > weird. And while at it, explicit jiffy comparisons are > > > > converted to use time_{after|before} macros. > > > > Same question as for "add ide_hwgroup_t.polling" patch. > > AFAICS drive->sleep is either '0' or 'timeout + jiffies' (always > 0) > > Hmm, what if jiffies + timeout == 0?
Hm, jiffies is unsigned and timeout is always > 0 but this is still possible if jiffies + timeout wraps, right? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/