From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [RFC IPROUTE 00/08]: Time cleanups + nano-second clock resolution support Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:54:58 +0100 Message-ID: <45F7B862.4010700@trash.net> References: <20070304191402.22838.91224.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20070313144253.430ef008@freekitty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:33865 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933898AbXCNIzP (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:55:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070313144253.430ef008@freekitty> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:14:53 +0100 (MET) > Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>Patrick McHardy: >> [IPROUTE]: tbf: fix latency printing >> [IPROUTE]: Use tc_calc_xmittime() where appropriate >> [IPROUTE]: Introduce tc_calc_xmitsize and use where appropriate >> [IPROUTE]: Introduce TIME_UNITS_PER_SEC to represent internal clock resolution >> [IPROUTE]: Replace "usec" by "time" in function names >> [IPROUTE]: Add sprint_ticks() function and use in CBQ >> [IPROUTE]: Handle different kernel clock resolutions >> [IPROUTE]: Increase internal clock resolution to nsec > > > applied all Thanks Stephen, but actually I think the last patch (increase clock resolution) shouldn't go in yet. I'm not done yet looking at all the compatibility issues and it does change the range of valid values for everything dealing with times. Most places I looked at still accept reasonable ranges, but I would feel more comfortable to make sure everything is fine first.