Thanks Richard for the feedback. Some replies inline.
I agree with all the other feedback you provided for the other 3 patches. I
will make the corresponding change and send the patches by tomorrow.
>
>> +{
>> + if (s->offset_threshold && offset) {
>
> Why test offset != 0 here?
It’s not needed. Will remove it.
>
>> + if (abs(offset) < s->offset_threshold && s->curr_offset_values)
>
> Since you are Using abs(), don't you need a special case test for
> offset > INT_MAX ?
>
Yeah, sorry I missed it. Will check that.
>> + s->curr_offset_values--;
>> + return s->curr_offset_values ? 0 : 1;
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> double servo_sample(struct servo *servo,
>> int64_t offset,
>> uint64_t local_ts,
>> @@ -100,6 +113,12 @@ double servo_sample(struct servo *servo,
>>
>> if (*state != SERVO_UNLOCKED)
>> servo->first_update = 0;
>> + else
>> + servo->curr_offset_values = servo->num_offset_values;
>> +
>> + if (*state == SERVO_LOCKED && check_offset_threshold(servo, offset)) {
>> + *state = SERVO_LOCKED_STABLE;
>> + }
>
> This is getting hard to follow. Time for switch/case(*state) with all the
> cases listed explicitly.
Yeah will change this to switch/case.
Thanks,
Vedang
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
