bitkeeper revision 1.1159.258.146 (428e5a750X0LdGym7H2kz7FPjJu-mw)

Upgrade to linux 2.4.30

Signed-off-by: ian@xensource.com

linux-2.4.30-xen-sparse/include/linux/timer.h

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+#ifndef _LINUX_TIMER_H
+#define _LINUX_TIMER_H
+
+#include <linux/config.h>
+#include <linux/list.h>
+
+/*
+ * In Linux 2.4, static timers have been removed from the kernel.
+ * Timers may be dynamically created and destroyed, and should be initialized
+ * by a call to init_timer() upon creation.
+ *
+ * The "data" field enables use of a common timeout function for several
+ * timeouts. You can use this field to distinguish between the different
+ * invocations.
+ */
+struct timer_list {
+	struct list_head list;
+	unsigned long expires;
+	unsigned long data;
+	void (*function)(unsigned long);
+};
+
+extern void add_timer(struct timer_list * timer);
+extern int del_timer(struct timer_list * timer);
+#ifdef CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ
+extern struct timer_list *next_timer_event(void);
+#endif
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+extern int del_timer_sync(struct timer_list * timer);
+extern void sync_timers(void);
+#else
+#define del_timer_sync(t)	del_timer(t)
+#define sync_timers()		do { } while (0)
+#endif
+
+/*
+ * mod_timer is a more efficient way to update the expire field of an
+ * active timer (if the timer is inactive it will be activated)
+ * mod_timer(a,b) is equivalent to del_timer(a); a->expires = b; add_timer(a).
+ * If the timer is known to be not pending (ie, in the handler), mod_timer
+ * is less efficient than a->expires = b; add_timer(a).
+ */
+int mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long expires);
+
+extern void it_real_fn(unsigned long);
+
+static inline void init_timer(struct timer_list * timer)
+{
+	timer->list.next = timer->list.prev = NULL;
+}
+
+static inline int timer_pending (const struct timer_list * timer)
+{
+	return timer->list.next != NULL;
+}
+
+/*
+ *	These inlines deal with timer wrapping correctly. You are 
+ *	strongly encouraged to use them
+ *	1. Because people otherwise forget
+ *	2. Because if the timer wrap changes in future you wont have to
+ *	   alter your driver code.
+ *
+ * time_after(a,b) returns true if the time a is after time b.
+ *
+ * Do this with "<0" and ">=0" to only test the sign of the result. A
+ * good compiler would generate better code (and a really good compiler
+ * wouldn't care). Gcc is currently neither.
+ */
+#define time_after(a,b)		((long)(b) - (long)(a) < 0)
+#define time_before(a,b)	time_after(b,a)
+
+#define time_after_eq(a,b)	((long)(a) - (long)(b) >= 0)
+#define time_before_eq(a,b)	time_after_eq(b,a)
+
+#endif