On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 04:54:16PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> time_after (as opposed to time_after_equal) already ensures that the
> cache lifetime is at least as much as requested. There is no point in
> manually adding another jiffy to that value, and this can confuse the
> reader into wrong interpretation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Tested OK on my ADM1032 evaluation board.
>
> drivers/hwmon/lm90.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-3.10-rc1.orig/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c 2013-04-29 02:36:01.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-3.10-rc1/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c 2013-05-19 16:34:07.915505072 +0200
> @@ -470,8 +470,8 @@ static struct lm90_data *lm90_update_dev
>
> mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
>
> - next_update = data->last_updated
> - + msecs_to_jiffies(data->update_interval) + 1;
> + next_update = data->last_updated +
> + msecs_to_jiffies(data->update_interval);
> if (time_after(jiffies, next_update) || !data->valid) {
> u8 h, l;
> u8 alarms;
>
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
>
> _______________________________________________
> lm-sensors mailing list
> lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
>
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
