I'm having a real stellar day, diregard my last comment :)

donald

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Donald Sharp <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Michael -
>
> There are two calls into OSPF_OPAQUE_TIMER_ON in ospf_opaque.c.  Lines
> 1805 and 2026.  Your patch fixes line 2026 but neglects 1805.
>
> thanks!
>
> donald
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Michael Rossberg <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > This is a great idea, thanks for the implementation!
>>
>> I am happy if someone finds it useful.
>>
>> >  struct timeval
>> > +msec2tv (int a)
>> > +{
>> > +  struct timeval ret;
>> > +
>> > +  ret.tv_sec = 0;
>> > +  ret.tv_usec = a * 1000;
>> > +
>> > +  return tv_adjust (ret);
>> > +}
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not a very big fan of returning local static information in
>> msec2tv.  I would prefer that you pass in the struct timeval * that you
>> want filled in.  Otherwise you are going to get some very weird behavior
>> when someone down the line missappropriates the msec2tv and calls it twice
>> and expects the output to stay consistent.  Additionally if someone ever
>> adds another thread it will misbehave as well.
>>
>> Please note that the value is returned by copy and not by reference to a
>> static or
>> global variable. Hence, it should work perfectly in multithreaded
>> environments or
>> over multiple calls. It may not be the fastest, but struct timeval is
>> small.
>> >
>> >    if (! list_isempty (ospf_opaque_type11_funclist)
>> > @@ -1368,7 +1368,7 @@ ospf_opaque_lsa_originate_schedule (struct
>> ospf_interface *oi, int *delay0)
>> >        top->t_opaque_lsa_self =
>> >          thread_add_timer (master, ospf_opaque_type11_lsa_originate,
>> >                            top, delay);
>> > -      delay += OSPF_MIN_LS_INTERVAL;
>> > +      delay += top->min_ls_interval / 1000;
>> >
>> > delay is an integer, do you really mean to throw away the sub second
>> accuracty here?  If I am reading the code right, I am able to setup a
>> min_ls_interval of <0-5000>.  If I pass in 1500, I want 1.5 seconds, we are
>> going to get 1 second.
>>
>> You are right - I have been lazy. Please find the attached patch that
>> fixes this
>> behavior.
>> Is there anything else we should do here?
>> Best regards
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev

Reply via email to