Re: [PATCH] time: Introduce function to check correctness of nanoseconds value

[Lukasz Majewski <lukma at denx dot de>]

Hi Paul,

> On 10/24/19 2:14 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > +static inline bool valid_nanoseconds (long ns)
> > +{
> > +  if (__glibc_likely (ns >= 0 && ns <= 999999999))
> > +    return true;
> > +
> > +  return false;
> > +}  
> 
> The function name should be at the start of the line.

Ok.

> 
> Doesn't glibc prefer 'long int' to 'long'?

I've used the type from struct timespec definition (long   tv_nsec;)

I can change it to long int if preferred.

> 
> The function body should simply be 'return __glibc_likely (0 <= ns &&
> ns < 1000000000);' (for range checks I prefer textual order to
> reflect numeric order).

Then the function shall be rewritten to:

static inline bool
valid_nanoseconds (long ns)
{
  return __glibc_likely (0 <= ns && ns < 1000000000);
}


The question is if we do prefer ns < 1000000000 or ns <= 999999999 ?

The 1000000000 is used in the hardcoded conditions, which this function
replaces, hence maybe we shall keep the 1000000000?


Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

--

DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: lukma@denx.de

Attachment: pgpnlwerW5BEF.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature