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 linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <46CA5E75.9050904@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:09:33 +0530 From: Varun Chandramohan <varunc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> CC: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net, socketcan@...tkopp.net, krkumar2@...ibm.com, varuncha@...ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4 - rev2] Add new timeval_to_sec function Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:45:36 +0530 > Varun Chandramohan <varunc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > >> A new function for converting timeval to time_t is added in time.h. Its a common function used in different >> places. >> >> Signed-off-by: Varun Chandramohan <varunc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> include/linux/time.h | 12 ++++++++++++ >> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/time.h b/include/linux/time.h >> index 6a5f503..1faf65c 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/time.h >> +++ b/include/linux/time.h >> @@ -149,6 +149,18 @@ static inline s64 timeval_to_ns(const st >> } >> >> /** >> + * timeval_to_sec - Convert timeval to seconds >> + * @tv: pointer to the timeval variable to be converted >> + * >> + * Returns the seconds representation of timeval parameter. >> + * Note : Here we round up the value. We dont need accuracy. >> + */ >> +static inline time_t timeval_to_sec(const struct timeval *tv) >> +{ >> + return (tv->tv_sec + (tv->tv_usec ? 1 : 0)); >> +} >> + >> > > Why roundup? Unless there is a requirement in the standard, please just > use the timeval seconds. In which case the inline is unneeded. > > > Thanks for the reply stephen. As you might be aware that this discussion took place sometime ago when i posted my first patch set. Initially it was like this: return (tv->tv_sec + (tv->tv_usec + 500000)/1000000); Then i got some comments from patrick and oliver. They wanted me to round it up. So what about rounding up with return (tv->tv_sec + (tv->tv_usec + 999999)/1000000); Then on second revision the above was changed to return tv->tv_sec + (tv->tv_usec ? 1 : 0); as it would be much faster. Since the timeval is meant for stats purpose we decided not really bother about accuracy. My initial patch actually took only sec value into account, but i was adviced to round up usec to give a better o/p. Is that ok??? Or you still think we should consider only secs? Regards, Varun - 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