From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
To: Varun Chandramohan <varunc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, sri@us.ibm.com, dlstevens@us.ibm.com,
varuncha@in.ibm.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Add new timeval_to_sec function
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:22:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46A59AAF.6090605@hartkopp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46A57CF3.6040505@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-24 6:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-23 4:41 [PATCH 2/4] Add new timeval_to_sec function Varun Chandramohan
2007-07-23 11:24 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-24 4:15 ` Varun Chandramohan
2007-07-24 6:22 ` Oliver Hartkopp [this message]
2007-07-24 6:40 ` Varun Chandramohan
2007-07-24 13:43 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-24 13:50 ` Varun Chandramohan
2007-07-24 19:54 ` David Stevens
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46A59AAF.6090605@hartkopp.net \
--to=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
--cc=dlstevens@us.ibm.com \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sri@us.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=varunc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=varuncha@in.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).