On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:11:29PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > > I think it's a good idea if it makes code more obviously correct and > > doesn't add significant overhead. ?What do you have in mind? > > I haven't thought through it entirely but basically a new timer_t type > which would be typdefed as a long long int. A function to set the > timer for some number of seconds in the future, and a function to > check if the timer has gone off. Perhaps a wait for timer function > too. It would be pretty trivial, but we've reimplemented this logic > all over the code and are bound to make mistakes like this as it's not > super clean.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I think I liked the name "timems_t", that you suggested some time ago, better than "timer_t". It seems harder to confuse with "time_t". Or do you plan to somehow distinguish between "time in milliseconds" and "timer" types? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
