timems_t sounds good to me. I don't think I suggested it, but I'll take credit =).
Ethan On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:11:29PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> > I think it's a good idea if it makes code more obviously correct and >> > doesn't add significant overhead. ?What do you have in mind? >> >> I haven't thought through it entirely but basically a new timer_t type >> which would be typdefed as a long long int. A function to set the >> timer for some number of seconds in the future, and a function to >> check if the timer has gone off. Perhaps a wait for timer function >> too. It would be pretty trivial, but we've reimplemented this logic >> all over the code and are bound to make mistakes like this as it's not >> super clean. > > Sounds pretty reasonable to me. > > I think I liked the name "timems_t", that you suggested some time ago, > better than "timer_t". It seems harder to confuse with "time_t". Or > do you plan to somehow distinguish between "time in milliseconds" and > "timer" types? > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
