Hi David, The fact is we still want to keep it with that explicit meaning, so make the code easy to understand. Yes, the 'time_after32()' or another macro can give the same result but makes no sense in this particular scenario. Otherwise, do you like something such as:
#define publication_after(...) time_after32(...) BR/Tuong -----Original Message----- From: David Miller <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 1:14 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [net-next v2] tipc: support in-order name publication events From: Tuong Lien <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 09:53:25 +0700 > +static inline int publication_after(struct publication *pa, > + struct publication *pb) > +{ > + return ((int)(pb->id - pa->id) < 0); > +} Juse use time32_after() et al. instead of reinventing the same exact code please. _______________________________________________ tipc-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
