netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] New Patch: Implementation for IPv6 MIB:ipv6AddressTable

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] New Patch: Implementation for IPv6 MIB:ipv6AddressTable
From: Shirley Ma <mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:17:35 -0700
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200310081706.09485.mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: IBM Linux
References: <OF4B7AD7E2.5CA239A1-ON87256DB9.0067C527@xxxxxxxxxx> <20031008130016.559b8047.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <200310081706.09485.mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.4.3
Hi, David,

There is possible loss of precision in the new patch for the timestamp. I have 
two solutions. 

Which one do you think is better.

This one is too much math.

ci.cstamp = (__u32)(TIME_DELTA(ifa->cstamp, INITIAL_JIFFIES) / HZ * 100
                  + TIME_DELTA(ifa->cstamp, INITIAL_JIFFIES) % HZ * 100 / HZ);
ci.tstamp = (__u32)(TIME_DELTA(ifa->tstamp, INITIAL_JIFFIES) / HZ * 100
                  + TIME_DELTA(ifa->tstamp, INITIAL_JIFFIES) % HZ * 100 / HZ);

This one might overflow.

ci.cstamp = (__u32)(TIME_DELTA(ifa->cstamp, INITIAL_JIFFIES) *100 ) / HZ;
ci.tstamp = (__u32)(TIME_DELTA(ifa->tstamp, INITIAL_JIFFIES) * 100) / HZ;

Thanks
Shirley Ma
IBM Linux Technology Center
--------------------------------------------


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>