Bug in alarm handling fixed

[Christoph Csebits]

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 )

christoph
--