> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Wiles, Roger Keith [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 10:31 AM > To: Savolainen, Petri (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Cc: ext Anders Roxell; Petri Savolainen; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH v2 1/2] Use timer resolution > > > On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:07 AM, Savolainen, Petri (NSN - FI/Espoo) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ext Anders Roxell [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:07 PM > >> To: Petri Savolainen > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH v2 1/2] Use timer resolution > >> > >> On 2014-09-02 15:47, Petri Savolainen wrote: > >>> Use resolution and min/max tmo values from timer create call. > >>> Use common nanosec time defines. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Petri Savolainen <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> platform/linux-generic/include/api/odp_time.h | 5 ++ > >>> platform/linux-generic/odp_timer.c | 67 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++------- > >>> 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/platform/linux-generic/include/api/odp_time.h > >> b/platform/linux-generic/include/api/odp_time.h > >>> index 188d1fe..1770223 100644 > >>> --- a/platform/linux-generic/include/api/odp_time.h > >>> +++ b/platform/linux-generic/include/api/odp_time.h > >>> @@ -21,6 +21,11 @@ extern "C" { > >>> > >>> #include <odp_std_types.h> > >>> > >>> +/* Time in nanoseconds */ > >>> +#define ODP_TIME_USEC 1000UL /*< Microsecond in nsec */ > >>> +#define ODP_TIME_MSEC 1000000UL /*< Millisecond in nsec */ > >>> +#define ODP_TIME_SEC 1000000000UL /*< Second in nsec */ > >> > >> you need to add "/**<" and not "/*<" > > > > OK. > > > >> > >>> + > >>> > >>> /** > >>> * Current time in CPU cycles > >>> diff --git a/platform/linux-generic/odp_timer.c b/platform/linux- > >> generic/odp_timer.c > >>> index 1bf37f9..6e89f5c 100644 > >>> --- a/platform/linux-generic/odp_timer.c > >>> +++ b/platform/linux-generic/odp_timer.c > >>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > >>> > >>> #include <odp_timer.h> > >>> #include <odp_timer_internal.h> > >>> +#include <odp_time.h> > >>> #include <odp_buffer_pool_internal.h> > >>> #include <odp_internal.h> > >>> #include <odp_atomic.h> > >>> @@ -18,9 +19,14 @@ > >>> > >>> #include <string.h> > >>> > >>> +#define USEC ODP_TIME_USEC > >>> +#define MSEC ODP_TIME_MSEC > >>> +#define SEC ODP_TIME_SEC > >> > >> no, why duplicate it? > > > > What's the problem? > > The only problem I see with using the shorting names is possible name > space collision with pre-existing code. As much as I like the shorter > names the ODP_TIME_XXX prefix is safer and the one I would have picked. If > we already have ODP_TIME_XXX defines then using them instead of creating > new defines just to save a few keystrokes is not worth it IMO. As for > readability they both are readable and when I see ODP_TIME_XXX I know for > a fact it is an ODP define.
Compiler would catch it, if I'd include some file that already defined SEC. This is internal to implementation (.c files) and according to coding rules (== checkpatch). So it's more matter of taste than a technical issue. -Petri _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
