On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 05:17:47PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:05:37 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 04:57:30PM +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> > > > Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Are you going to take the series, or do you want me to handle it ? > > You take tmp401 and I take lm63 and lm90? > Ok, makes sense. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
