Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | Alice Ryhl <> | Date | Thu, 11 Apr 2024 18:21:43 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] rust: time: add Ktime |
| |
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:57 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 08:59:38AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote: > > + /// Returns the number of milliseconds. > > + #[inline] > > + pub fn to_ms(self) -> i64 { > > + self.divns_constant::<NSEC_PER_MSEC>() > > + } > > +} > > + > > +/// Returns the number of milliseconds between two ktimes. > > +#[inline] > > +pub fn ktime_ms_delta(later: Ktime, earlier: Ktime) -> i64 { > > + (later - earlier).to_ms() > > +} > > + > > +impl core::ops::Sub for Ktime { > > + type Output = Ktime; > > + > > + #[inline] > > + fn sub(self, other: Ktime) -> Ktime { > > + Self { > > + inner: self.inner - other.inner, > > Nit: although we use "Release mode" to compile Rust code in kernel, so > i64 substraction behaves as 2's complement wrap, I think it's better we > use wrapping_sub here: > > self.inner.wrapping_sub(other.inner) > > however it's not a correctness issue for now, so with or without it,
We enable overflow checks even on release mode right now. But I don't understand this nit because we only have an overflow condition if the two ktimes differ by more than 2^31, and if that happens then that's a *legitimate* overflow that we would want to catch. Or is there something I am missing?
Alice
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |