Re: Patch "[PKT_SCHED]: PSCHED_TADD() and PSCHED_TADD2() can result,tv_usec >= 1000000" seems wrong

2006-07-19 Thread Shuya MAEDA
original code and change the 'if' in a 'while'. In Guillaume's patch, "while (__delta > USEC_PER_SEC){ ... }", but I think it should be "while (__delta >= USEC_PER_SEC){ ... }". Is it right? Thank you very much. -- Shuya MAEDA - To unsubscribe fr

Re: [PKT_SCHED]: PSCHED_TADD() and PSCHED_TADD2() can result,tv_usec >= 1000000

2006-06-28 Thread Shuya MAEDA
Excuse me for the corrupted patch. I will send the patch as an attachment this time. Thank you very much. David Miller wrote: > From: Shuya MAEDA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:16:03 +0900 > >> Thank you for the comment. >> I made the patch that u

Re: [PKT_SCHED]: PSCHED_TADD() and PSCHED_TADD2() can result,tv_usec >= 1000000

2006-06-20 Thread Shuya MAEDA
Thank you for the comment. I made the patch that used the loop instead of the divide and modulus. Are there any comments? David Miller wrote: From: Shuya MAEDA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:36:46 +0900 #define PSCHED_TADD2(tv, delta, tv_res) \ ({ \ - int _

[PATCH] [PKT_SCHED]: PSCHED_TADD() and PSCHED_TADD2() can result,tv_usec >= 1000000

2006-06-19 Thread Shuya MAEDA
/ USEC_PER_SEC; \ +__delta -= (delta) % USEC_PER_SEC; \ + } \ + (tv).tv_usec += __delta; \ + if((tv).tv_usec >= USEC_PER_SEC) { \ +(tv).tv_sec++; \ +(tv).tv_usec -= USEC_PER_SEC; \ + } \ }) /* Set/check