> On Jul 26, 2024, at 3:27 AM, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:27:15PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
>> I am attaching v3 of the patch which addresses the comments made
>> earlier by Bertrand about the comment in the patch [1].
>
> Thanks!
>
> Looking at it:
>
> 1 ===
>
> + struct instr_time start_time;
>
> I think we can get rid of the "struct" keyword here.
>
> 2 ===
>
> + struct instr_time current_time;
> + struct instr_time elapsed_time;
>
> Same as above.
Will fix those 2.
>
> 3 ===
>
> I gave more thoughts and I think it can be simplified a bit to reduce the
> number of operations in the while loop.
>
> What about relying on a "absolute" time that way:
>
> instr_time absolute;
> absolute.ticks = start_time.ticks + msec * 1000000;
>
> and then in the while loop:
>
> while (nanosleep(&delay, &remain) == -1 && errno == EINTR)
> {
> instr_time current_time;
> INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(current_time);
>
> if (current_time.ticks > absolute.ticks)
> {
> break;
While I agree this code is cleaner, myy hesitation there is we don’t
have any other place in which we access .ticks directly and the
common practice is to use the intsr_time.h APIs.
What do you think?
Regards,
Sami
