On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:03:59 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > + * It's not sufficient to just do a time_after() check on > + * dirtied_when. That assumes that dirtied_when will always > + * change within a period of jiffies that encompasses half the > + * machine word size (2^31 jiffies on 32-bit arch). That's not > + * necessarily the case if an inode is being constantly > + * redirtied. Since dirtied_when can never be in the future, > + * we can assume that if it appears to be so then it is > + * actually in the distant past. so this really is a 32-bit-only thing. I guess that isn't worth optimising for though. otoh, given that all three comparisons are the same: + time_after(inode->dirtied_when, *older_than_this) && + time_before_eq(inode->dirtied_when, jiffies)) (although one is inverted (i think?)), it might end up nicer if this was all done in a little helper function? That way we only need to comment what's going on at a single site, and we could omit the additional test if !CONFIG_64BIT. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
