Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755577Ab3EJVTn (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2013 17:19:43 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:6052 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754670Ab3EJVTm (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2013 17:19:42 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,651,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="335719537" Message-ID: <1368220776.18714.30.camel@ideak-mobl> Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] net/bonding: take msecs_to_jiffies_min into use From: Imre Deak To: Michal Kubecek Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Daniel Vetter , Jay Vosburgh , Andy Gospodarek , netdev@vger.kernel.org Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 00:19:36 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20130510135810.GA30139@unicorn.suse.cz> References: <1368188011-23661-1-git-send-email-imre.deak@intel.com> <1368188011-23661-6-git-send-email-imre.deak@intel.com> <20130510135810.GA30139@unicorn.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.2-0ubuntu0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1747 Lines: 45 On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 15:58 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 03:13:24PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > > @@ -1751,7 +1751,7 @@ int bond_enslave(struct net_device *bond_dev, struct net_device *slave_dev) > > read_lock(&bond->lock); > > > > new_slave->last_arp_rx = jiffies - > > - (msecs_to_jiffies(bond->params.arp_interval) + 1); > > + (msecs_to_jiffies_min(bond->params.arp_interval)); > > > > if (bond->params.miimon && !bond->params.use_carrier) { > > link_reporting = bond_check_dev_link(bond, slave_dev, 1); > > This "+ 1" was actually meant as "plus one". We need to ensure that > > slave->last_arp_rx + msecs_to_jiffies(bond->params.arp_interval) > > is strictly less than current value of jiffies. Ok, I see, the adjustment here is for a different reason and msecs_to_jiffies_min wouldn't express this properly. So we should drop this patch. Perhaps it'd be nice to add something like the above explanation as a code comment, to make it clear that the adjustment is not for guaranteeing a minimum duration as it is in many other places. --Imre > So with proposed > definition of msecs_to_jiffies_min() it works correctly but if the > implementation ever changes in such way that > > msecs_to_jiffies_min(x) >= msecs_to_jiffies(x) > > for some value of x, the code would be incorrect. > > Michal Kubeček > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/