[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A603B8.6080308@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:20:48 +0530
From: Varun Chandramohan <varunc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.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
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Varun Chandramohan wrote:
>
>> Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> 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);
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> This can done. Is this what you were ref to me, Patrick?
>>
>
>
> Yes, timeouts should usually be at least as long as specified.
>
Thanks Patrick and Oliver, ill round it up. :-)
-
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