On Thursday 01 March 2012 12:48:58 Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > Just a nitpick: I think the following is a little bit more accurate (take > > into account cases when HZ is multiple of 256, which is rare but > > possible): > > > > -#define MESSAGE_AGE_INCR ((HZ < 256) ? 1 : (HZ/256)) > > +#define MESSAGE_AGE_INCR ((HZ / 256) + ((HZ % 256) ? 1 : 0)) > > hmm, HZ 256 isn't selectable today AFAIK, Yes, today. Things change :) > but even if it was adding an > extra tick would not cause any malfunction of STP. Yes, no harm. I just love things to be accurate :) -- Vitalii Demianets _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
