[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45ACD63B.2030704@trash.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:42:19 +0100
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [IPROUTE 04/05]: Replace "usec" by "time" in function names
Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On 10-01-2007 11:01, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>[IPROUTE]: Replace "usec" by "time" in function names
>>
>>Rename functions containing "usec" since they don't necessarily return
>>usec units anymore.
>>
>>diff --git a/tc/q_cbq.c b/tc/q_cbq.c
>>index 0000a56..913b26a 100644
>>--- a/tc/q_cbq.c
>>+++ b/tc/q_cbq.c
>>@@ -500,17 +500,17 @@ static int cbq_print_opt(struct qdisc_ut
>> if (lss && show_details) {
>> fprintf(f, "\nlevel %u ewma %u avpkt %ub ", lss->level, lss->ewma_log, lss->avpkt);
>> if (lss->maxidle) {
>>- fprintf(f, "maxidle %luus ", tc_core_tick2usec(lss->maxidle>>lss->ewma_log));
>>+ fprintf(f, "maxidle %luus ", tc_core_tick2time(lss->maxidle>>lss->ewma_log));
>
>
> If not necessarily usec, "%luus" could be misleading
> here and later.
The next patch replaces it by sprint_time.
>>diff --git a/tc/q_netem.c b/tc/q_netem.c
>>index cfd1799..24fb95e 100644
>>--- a/tc/q_netem.c
>>+++ b/tc/q_netem.c
>>@@ -108,15 +108,15 @@ static int get_ticks(__u32 *ticks, const
>> {
>> unsigned t;
>>
>>- if(get_usecs(&t, str))
>>+ if(get_time(&t, str))
>> return -1;
>>
>>- if (tc_core_usec2big(t)) {
>>+ if (tc_core_time2big(t)) {
>> fprintf(stderr, "Illegal %d usecs (too large)\n", t);
>
>
> Like above but usecs.
Fixed, thanks.
>>diff --git a/tc/tc_core.c b/tc/tc_core.c
>>index 07dc4ba..e27254e 100644
>>--- a/tc/tc_core.c
>>+++ b/tc/tc_core.c
>>@@ -27,21 +27,21 @@ static __u32 t2us=1;
>> static __u32 us2t=1;
>> static double tick_in_usec = 1;
>>
>>-int tc_core_usec2big(long usec)
>>+int tc_core_time2big(long time)
>> {
>>- __u64 t = usec;
>>+ __u64 t = time;
>>
>> t *= tick_in_usec;
>> return (t >> 32) != 0;
>> }
>>
>>
>>-long tc_core_usec2tick(long usec)
>>+long tc_core_time2tick(long time)
>> {
>>- return usec*tick_in_usec;
>>+ return time*tick_in_usec;
>> }
>>
>>-long tc_core_tick2usec(long tick)
>>+long tc_core_tick2time(long tick)
>> {
>> return tick/tick_in_usec;
>> }
>
>
> Similarly (tick_in_time)?
Something like that will be done in a followup patch.
View attachment "04.diff" of type "text/x-diff" (9873 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists