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

[Randy Dunlap]

On Sun, 15 May 2011 16:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day wrote:

> 
>   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?

Yes IMO.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
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/