Hi,
Fix is ok.
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 02:46:21AM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
better way, with the assumption that the order for calling alarm functions
registered for identical times is unspecified. I think that's reasonable,
and I've documented it.
The order for calling alarm functions of identical alarm times
can be preserved (if its important at all) if you take
- if( list_alarm->trigger > alarm->trigger )
instead of
+ if( list_alarm->trigger >= alarm->trigger )
Duh yes, I had been thinking of the other reported problem as well, and
didn't twig that that would also work. I've made this change.