netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question about QOS

To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Question about QOS
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:40:32 -0700
Cc: tgraf@xxxxxxx, nicolas.dichtel@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <427225B2.6010705@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <426E06F1.9000105@xxxxxxxxx> <20050426125955.GT577@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <426E56DC.7000108@xxxxxxxxx> <20050426191454.GU577@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <426F42F0.9020609@xxxxxxxxx> <20050427114216.GV577@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <427225B2.6010705@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:16:50 +0200
Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thomas Graf wrote:
> > * Nicolas DICHTEL <426F42F0.9020609@xxxxxxxxx> 2005-04-27 09:44
> > 
> >>>Yes I agree, it doesn't really matter what value we return and `bound'
> >>>is most likely to be correct. I think we should also fix the unlikely
> >>>but still possible case when tv1.tv_usec is slightly smaller than
> >>>tv2.tv_usec. I know it is very unlikely but do_gettimeofday really
> >>>is not that reliable and we have users which rely on a positive
> >>>delta. Can you extend your patch to return abs(delta) for case 0
> >>>in PSCHED_TDIFF_SAFE?
> 
> Why abs(delta)? It could be above bound, in fact all cases besides
> delta_sec > 2 doesn't take care to stay inside [0..bound] at all.

Applied, thanks Patrick.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: Question about QOS, David S. Miller <=