On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > On Mon, 01 May 2017 15:29:48 -0700 > Agreed time wraparound would cause problems. > But why not use existing time_after() macro here? >
I suspect this is because time_after() asserts that it is being used on unsigned long (64 bits), and tcp_time_stamp is 32 bits. I suppose for tcp_time_stamp comparisons we could re-use the u32 TCP sequence macros for before() and after()? Even the comment for before()/after() is already generic enough to apply to tcp_time_stamp: "The next routines deal with comparing 32 bit unsigned ints and worry about wraparound (automatic with unsigned arithmetic)." That might be nice. neal
