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@dpdk.org
Cc: thomas.monjalon@6wind.com; rsanford@akamai.com; reshma.pattan@intel.com; Karmarkar Suyash <redacted>
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 [off-list ref]

 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