[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A59AAF.6090605@hartkopp.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:22:39 +0200
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: Varun Chandramohan <varunc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
sri@...ibm.com, dlstevens@...ibm.com, varuncha@...ibm.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Add new timeval_to_sec function
Varun Chandramohan wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>> Varun Chandramohan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> /**
>>> + * timeval_to_sec - Convert timeval to seconds
>>> + * @tv: pointer to the timeval variable to be converted
>>> + *
>>> + * Returns the seconds representation of timeval parameter.
>>> + */
>>> +static inline time_t timeval_to_sec(const struct timeval *tv)
>>> +{
>>> + return (tv->tv_sec + (tv->tv_usec + 500000)/1000000);
>>> +}
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think you should round down timeout values.
>>
>>
> Can you elaborate on that? As per the RFC of MIB ,we need only seconds
> granularity. Taking that as the case i dont understand why round down
> should not be done?
>
When you like to create any timeout based on your calculated value, you
might run into the problem that your calculated value is set to _zero_
even if there was "some time" before the conversion. This might probably
not what you indented to get.
So what about rounding up with
return (tv->tv_sec + (tv->tv_usec + 999999)/1000000);
???
Btw. isn't here already any solution based on ktime conversions?
Regards,
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists