On 06/04/2017 18:50, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Thu, 06 Apr 2017, Laurent Dufour wrote: > >> How is 'seqnum' wrapping handled here ? >> I'd rather see something like time_before() here, isn't it ? > > Its a 64bit counter, no overflows.
I should have miss something, what prevents this 64bit counter to not overflow ? At some point of time, this counter could reach ~0UL and then 0UL, which is breaking this check.
