[CRIU] [PATCH v9 05/10] parse: add a helper to obtain an uptime

[Pavel Tikhomirov]

On 04/03/2018 04:29 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> 
> 
> вт, 3 апр 2018 г., 14:24 Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov at virtuozzo.com 
> <mailto:ptikhomirov at virtuozzo.com>>:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 04/03/2018 04:11 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>      > 2018-04-03 10:34 GMT+01:00 Pavel Tikhomirov
>     <ptikhomirov at virtuozzo.com <mailto:ptikhomirov at virtuozzo.com>>:
>      > [..]
>      >> +
>      >> +#define CSEC_PER_SEC 100
>      >> +
>      >> +__maybe_unused int parse_uptime(u_int64_t *upt)
>      >
>      > Nit: can we use uint64_t?
>      > I see u_int64_t the first time and git says we've it only in one
>     other place.
> 
>     Oops, I brought it from encode_time - will use uint64_t instead, thanks!
> 
>      >
>      >> +{
>      >> +       unsigned long sec, csec;
>      >> +       FILE *f;
>      >> +
>      >> +       f = fopen("/proc/uptime", "r");
>      >> +       if (!f) {
>      >> +               pr_perror("Failed to fopen /proc/uptime");
>      >> +               return -1;
>      >> +       }
>      >> +
>      >> +       if (fscanf(f, "%lu.%2lu", &sec, &csec) != 2) {
>      >> +               pr_perror("Failed to parse /proc/uptime");
>      >> +               fclose(f);
>      >> +               return -1;
>      >> +       }
>      >> +
>      >> +       *upt = sec * USEC_PER_SEC + csec * (USEC_PER_SEC /
>     CSEC_PER_SEC);
>      >
>      > It's not clear from the commit message, why do you save time in usec,
>      > rather than in csec?
> 
>     I thought it would be better to have usec in image, so when/if we have
>     more precise uptime we can just reuse same variable in image and won't
>     need adding another one.
> 
> 
> I don't mind. As you'll resend anyway - could you mention
> that in commit message, please? ;)

Ok, sure!

> 
>   Thanks,
>                Dmitry
> (answering from phone, sorry for html)

-- 
Best regards, Tikhomirov Pavel
Software Developer, Virtuozzo.