[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <85389e04-76ad-9a19-2a33-d49a9bdd8452@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 13:55:19 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"xe-kernel@...ernal.cisco.com" <xe-kernel@...ernal.cisco.com>,
Shabeena Shabeena -X "(sshabeen" - ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES
MAURIITIUS LIMITED at "Cisco)" <sshabeen@...co.com>
Subject: Re: ptp
On 09/07/2016 01:48 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 01:40:59PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
>> There is a test (below) , which prevents negative nanosecond updates. The
>> code below would force a negative update to always return more than
>> NSEC_PER_SEC. It should be using abs() instead which would return the value
>> desired.
> No. This:
>
> /*
> * The value of a timeval is the sum of its fields, but the
> * field tv_usec must always be non-negative.
> */
>
> HTH,
> Richard
So the code only allows second granularity negative updates, or the
seconds component is the only part which needs to actually be negative ?
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists