On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:34:42AM -0800, Tyler Retzlaff wrote:
> * Initialize const int NS_PER_SEC with an integer literal instead of
> double thereby avoiding implicit conversion from double to int.
>
> * Cast the result of the expression assigned to timespec.tv_nsec to long.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roret...@linux.microsoft.com>
> Acked-by: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dmitry.kozl...@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> v2:
> * update commit message to correct misspelled timspec -> timespec,
> remove remarks about casting to long they were unnecessary.
>
> lib/eal/windows/include/rte_os_shim.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/eal/windows/include/rte_os_shim.h
> b/lib/eal/windows/include/rte_os_shim.h
> index eda8113..19b12e9 100644
> --- a/lib/eal/windows/include/rte_os_shim.h
> +++ b/lib/eal/windows/include/rte_os_shim.h
> @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@
> static inline int
> rte_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock_id, struct timespec *tp)
> {
> - const int NS_PER_SEC = 1E9;
> + const int NS_PER_SEC = 1000000000;
Just for readability, and the immediate visibility of errors, could this be
rewritten as (1000 * 1000 * 1000). That avoids us having to count the zeros
to know that the number is correct.
BTW: is "int" still the best type to use for this value? Would it be better
as a #define?
/Bruce
> LARGE_INTEGER pf, pc;
> LONGLONG nsec;
>
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@
>
> nsec = pc.QuadPart * NS_PER_SEC / pf.QuadPart;
> tp->tv_sec = nsec / NS_PER_SEC;
> - tp->tv_nsec = nsec - tp->tv_sec * NS_PER_SEC;
> + tp->tv_nsec = (long)(nsec - tp->tv_sec * NS_PER_SEC);
> return 0;
> default:
> return -1;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
