On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:55:20 +0100 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:49:07 +0100 > > Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > What > > > > > likely can happen is that we may call mod_timer with jiffies that is > > > > > older than current which would call the timer immediately... > > > > > > > > Yeah, I think that the timer is called immediately here. It's > > > > unnecessary. > > > > > > Hmm, just checked the code, and indeed it does. Have the timers always > > > behaved like that? > > > > I guess so because it's unrealistic that the caller of mod_time makes > > sure that expires is future time, in particular if the caller wants > > short timeout? > > It's all a little confusing, I think. When do you stop considering it a > little in the past and long into the future? After looking at internal_add_timer(), I guess, if the difference is less than the largest of signed long, it is considered to be the past. But I can say that it's not a good idea to ask me about the timer implementation details. ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
