Hello, I corrected the fixes line, Can you please review the change and if no further comments can you please let me know the next steps. Thanks.
Regards Suyash Karmarkar -----Original Message----- From: Karmarkar Suyash Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 12:02 PM To: dev at dpdk.org Cc: thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com; rsanford at akamai.com; reshma.pattan at intel.com; Karmarkar Suyash <skarmarkar at sonusnet.com> Subject: [PATCH v2]:rte_timer:timer lag issue correction For Periodic timers ,if the lag gets introduced, the current code added additional delay when the next peridoc timer was initialized by not taking into account the delay added, with this fix the code would start the next occurrence of timer keeping in account the lag added.Corrected the behavior. Fixes:ba885531ac26 ("rte_timer: timer lag issue") Karmarkar Suyash (1): Signed-off-by: Karmarkar Suyash <skarmarkar at sonusnet.com> lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) --- lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c index 43da836..18782fa 100644 --- a/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c +++ b/lib/librte_timer/rte_timer.c @@ -613,7 +613,7 @@ void rte_timer_manage(void) status.owner = (int16_t)lcore_id; rte_wmb(); tim->status.u32 = status.u32; - __rte_timer_reset(tim, cur_time + tim->period, + __rte_timer_reset(tim, tim->expire + tim->period, tim->period, lcore_id, tim->f, tim->arg, 1); rte_spinlock_unlock(&priv_timer[lcore_id].list_lock); } -- 2.9.3.windows.1