any value in centralizing a defn of "RUN_AT()"?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  i notice that a number of drivers duplicate a macro definition of
RUN_AT():

drivers/staging/vt6655/device.h:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies+(x))
drivers/net/irda/au1k_ir.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/hamachi.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/tulip/tulip.h:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/wireless/airo.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies+(x))
drivers/net/rrunner.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/bnx2.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/3c59x.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
drivers/net/fealnx.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))

  etc, etc.  any value in just defining that once in jiffies.h and
letting everyone use that?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/