Balbir Singh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> /*
> + * sub = end - start, in normalized form
> + */
> +static inline void timespec_sub(struct timespec *start, struct timespec *end,
> + struct timespec *sub)
> +{
> + set_normalized_timespec(sub, end->tv_sec - start->tv_sec,
> + end->tv_nsec - start->tv_nsec);
> +}
The interface might not be right here.
- I think "lhs" and "rhs" would be better names than "start" and "end".
After all, we don't _know_ that the caller is using the two times as a
start and an end. The caller might be taking the difference between two
differences, for example.
- The existing timespec and timeval funtions tend to do return-by-value.
So this would become
static inline struct timespec timespec_sub(struct timespec lhs,
struct timespec rhs)
(and given that it's inlined, the added overhead of passing the
arguments by value will be zero)
- If we don't want to do that then at least let's get the arguments in a
sane order:
static inline void timespec_sub(struct timespec *result,
struct timespec lhs, struct timespec rhs)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
