I'd appreciate that.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:22:07PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > I don't feel that strongly about it. If you think we really need it, > I'll review the second version, and we'll put it in. > > Ethan > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:46:12PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >> > Assuming we really need this ability. I don't like that we have to > >> > take a readlock every time we get the time. Perhaps we could could > >> > have a global flag which is false unless time has ever been warped. > >> > If it hasn't then we can simply do the xclock_gettime(). I think > >> > that'd add a slight race, but I can't imagine it'd matter. > >> > >> I posted a v2 that eliminates the read-lock in the common case: > >> http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2013-September/031879.html > > > > > > > > Maybe this deserves more comment. > > > > time/warp was introduced by itself initially. It is useful by itself in > > situations where you want to advance time without actually waiting for > > it to do so, but you do not care if a little extra time goes by. In fact > > it is probably preferable in such situations, because it allows the tests > > to help you discover more timing related bugs. > > > > time/stop was introduced later. It helps you write tests for things that > > you otherwise couldn't write tests for because they depend on very > > precise timing. For example, you can't really test NetFlow expiration > > without stopping time because a really slow machine (or one using > > valgrind) could go through multiple expiration periods when you expect > > exactly one. > > -- > > "I don't normally do acked-by's. I think it's my way of avoiding > > getting blamed when it all blows up." Andrew Morton > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
