Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:29:22 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: svn-src-stable@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-stable-8@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r215791 - stable/8/sys/netinet Message-ID: <20101124102922.GP98817@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20101124175843.I1829@besplex.bde.org> References: <201011240537.oAO5bCSC056347@svn.freebsd.org> <20101124175843.I1829@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:11:53PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: B> > +++ stable/8/sys/netinet/if_ether.c Wed Nov 24 05:37:12 2010 (r215791) B> > @@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ retry: B> > int canceled; B> > B> > LLE_ADDREF(la); B> > - la->la_expire = time_second + V_arpt_down; B> > + la->la_expire = time_second; B> > canceled = callout_reset(&la->la_timer, hz * V_arpt_down, B> > arptimer, la); B> > if (canceled) B> > B> B> Isn't using non-monotic time for timeouts always wrong? Sure it is wrong. I never payed attention to that fact that time_second could be non-monotic. Is it non-monotic? I failed to understand kern_tc code at first glance. B> There are lots of other time_second's in networkining code. These B> still outnumber time_uptime's by about 68:41. rtcock.c uses the weird B> expression time_second - time_uptime for metrics. Since time_uptime B> is relative to boot time while time_second is relative to the Epoch, B> their difference is approximately the number of seconds since the B> Epoch, which is a very strange value which might nevertheless be B> useful for converting between monotonic expiry times and real expiry B> times, but I think it doesn't work even for that if the real time is B> stepped. B> B> Bruce -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101124102922.GP98817>