Hi Jukka, On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Jukka Rissanen < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Elena, > > > On 05/15/2012 03:37 PM, Elena Tebesoi wrote: > >> Hi Jukka, >> >> Thank you for the quick review and please find my answers inline. >> A new version of the patch is due, taking into account your suggestions. >> >> Regards, >> Elena >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Jukka Rissanen >> <[email protected].**com <[email protected]><mailto: >> jukka.rissanen@linux.**intel.com <[email protected]>>> >> >> > connman_resolver_append___**lifetime(const char *interface, const >> char *domain, >> return 0; >> } >> >> - entry->timeout = g_timeout_add_seconds(__** >> lifetime, >> >> - >> resolver_expire_cb, entry); >> + interval = floor(lifetime * >> + >> RESOLVER_LIFETIME_REFRESH___**THRESHOLD); >> >> >> >> Do we really need to use floor() here? What about just >> >> interval = lifetime * RESOLVER_LIFETIME_REFRESH___**THRESHOLD; >> >> >> The lifetime > 0 so we cannot have negative interval anyway. >> >> >> [ElenaT] What I tried with floor and ceil is to split the lifetime into >> two intervals without losing additional 1second with conversion from >> floating point to integer. >> RESOLVER_LIFETIME_REFRESH_**THRESHOLD is floating point here. >> >> > Yes, I know. In this case you do not need to call floor() because interval > is integer, the result of lifetime * RESOLVER_..._THRESHOLD will do the > floor automagically for you (the value is truncated). > [ElenaT] Agree :) > > > Cheers, > Jukka > > Regards, Elena _______________________________________________ connman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
