Sounds good to me. I will parenthesize it to be clear: (cfmi->ccm_interval_ms * 7) / 2
Ethan On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 04:39:27PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> The specification says that a fault should be signaled when 3.5 * >> ccm_interval milliseconds have passed. This commit respects that >> requirement, possibly increasing the responsiveness of fault >> detection slightly. > > Would you mind writing this as cfmi->ccm_interval_ms * 7 / 2 instead > of cfmi->ccm_interval_ms * 3.5? I realize that the latter is probably > efficient enough these days, but it still bothers me a little. > > Otherwise looks fine to me. Thank you! > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
