On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: > 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. > Fine. A good idea to the design.
Thx, Pingfan
