lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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