On 2013-08-13 10:25, liu ping fan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: >> On 2013-08-13 05:15, Liu Ping Fan wrote: >>> If slirp needs to emulate tcp timeout, then the timeout value >>> for mainloop should be more precise, which is determined by >>> slirp's fasttimo or slowtimo. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Liu Ping Fan <pingf...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> --- >>> main-loop.c | 2 +- >>> slirp/slirp.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/main-loop.c b/main-loop.c >>> index a44fff6..04120d2 100644 >>> --- a/main-loop.c >>> +++ b/main-loop.c >>> @@ -458,8 +458,8 @@ int main_loop_wait(int nonblocking) >>> g_array_set_size(gpollfds, 0); /* reset for new iteration */ >>> /* XXX: separate device handlers from system ones */ >>> #ifdef CONFIG_SLIRP >>> - slirp_update_timeout(&timeout); >>> slirp_pollfds_fill(gpollfds); >>> + slirp_update_timeout(&timeout); >> >> Why this reordering? >> > In order to give timeout more precise value, which is based on the > result of fasttimo or slowtimo after slirp_pollfds_fill()
OK. But to avoid that the caller has to know this dependency, better merge the update timeout logic into pollfds_fill. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
