From: "Tuong Lien Tong"
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:01:17 +0700
> Hi David,
>
> The fact is we still want to keep it with that explicit meaning, so make the
> code easy to understand. Yes, the 'time_after32()' or another macro can give
> the same result but makes no sense in this particular
Hi David,
The fact is we still want to keep it with that explicit meaning, so make the
code easy to understand. Yes, the 'time_after32()' or another macro can give
the same result but makes no sense in this particular scenario. Otherwise,
do you like something such as:
#define
From: Tuong Lien
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 09:53:25 +0700
> +static inline int publication_after(struct publication *pa,
> + struct publication *pb)
> +{
> + return ((int)(pb->id - pa->id) < 0);
> +}
Juse use time32_after() et al. instead of reinventing the same
It is observed that TIPC service binding order will not be kept in the
publication event report to user if the service is subscribed after the
bindings.
For example, services are bound by application in the following order:
Server: bound port A to {1,66,66} scope 2
Server: bound port A to
