On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 01:12:39PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Brian Norris <briannorris at chromium.org> wrote: > > I believe 'min' is unmodified throughout, and therefore 'kmin' is > > computed to be the same minimum timeout in each loop. Shouldn't this be > > decreasing on each iteration of the loop? (i.e., either your compute > > 'kmin' differently here, or you recompute 'min' based on the elapsed > > time?) > > Yes, I stupidly changed something at the last second and then didn't > test again after my stupid change. Fix coming soon with all comments > addressed. Sorry for posting broken code. :( :( :( With a loop style that is actively re-calculating things, such implementations should then not fall into the trap of basing the "next" value on "current" time, thereby bogusly accumulating scheduling-based delays with each new loop iteration etc. (i.e., things should still be based on hard, precise termination according to an *initially* calculated, *absolute*, *minimum* expiry time). Andreas Mohr -- GNU/Linux. It's not the software that's free, it's you.
