Re: [Patch 1/8] Setup

[Andrew Morton]

Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  /*
> + * sub = end - start, in normalized form
> + */
> +static inline void timespec_sub(struct timespec *start, struct timespec *end,
> +				struct timespec *sub)
> +{
> +	set_normalized_timespec(sub, end->tv_sec - start->tv_sec,
> +				end->tv_nsec - start->tv_nsec);
> +}

The interface might not be right here.

- I think "lhs" and "rhs" would be better names than "start" and "end". 
  After all, we don't _know_ that the caller is using the two times as a
  start and an end.  The caller might be taking the difference between two
  differences, for example.

- The existing timespec and timeval funtions tend to do return-by-value. 
  So this would become

	static inline struct timespec timespec_sub(struct timespec lhs,
							struct timespec rhs)

  (and given that it's inlined, the added overhead of passing the
  arguments by value will be zero)

- If we don't want to do that then at least let's get the arguments in a
  sane order:

	static inline void timespec_sub(struct timespec *result,
				struct timespec lhs, struct timespec rhs)


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/