On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 04:57:54PM +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> > > > > +static bool batadv_iv_ogm_metric_is_similar(uint32_t metric,
> > > > > +					    uint32_t new_metric)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	return (metric - new_metric < BATADV_TQ_SIMILARITY_THRESHOLD);
> > > > 
> > > > You might want to use abs(metric - new_metric) here, otherwise is_similar(a, b) output
> > > > might differ from is_similar(b, a).
> > > 
> > > Mh..imho the name of the function is bad because this has been done on purpose.
> > 
> > agreed, the function name is not really good. You could rename it to something like
> > "is_almost_or_better()" if you keep the current semantics, although this is not an
> > "easy name" either. Or rename it to "similar_or_greater()". Something like that
> > 
> > Although ...
> > > 
> > > The idea is that we want to see if 'b' is at least
> > > as good as 'a', therefore what we want to check if is b is greater than
> > > 'a - threshold' only.
> > > 
> > > Imagine that 'b' is greater than (a + threshold), for me the function has to
> > > return true, because the metric b is at least as good as a, but if I introduce
> > > the abs() the function would return false.
> > > 
> > > Example:
> > > 
> > > a=190
> > > b=240
> > > threshold=20
> > > 
> > > a - b = -50 < 20 => b is at least as good as a!
> > > 
> > > using abs:
> > > 
> > > abs(a - b) = 50 < 20 => NO! b is worse than a....and this is not true.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > this situation can happen in the code because usually 'a' will represents some
> > > kind of current metric and this is not supposed to be the best ever (maybe we
> > > still have to switch to a new best).
> > 
> > ... we actually compare to the biggest value (e.g. highest gateway rank, highest
> > bonding candidate), so I wonder if this can really happen. So adding abs() would
> > just make the semantics more clear without breaking the current code when we simply
> > replace. Although we need to check all occurences again, I'm not completely sure
> > that it's always compared to the greatest member.
> 
> well the current code uses the semantic that I implemented in the API (IIRC) and
> this is why I've done so: I wanted to keep the very same behaviour.
> 
> I'm also not entirely sure that we always compare to the greatest member.
> 
> What you are thinking about is the compare() function taking a threshold as
> parameter. We can do that with the compare() API if you want, but I think we
> should keep this "~is_similar()" API in order to avoid behavioural changes in
> the code.
> 


so I'll go for "bat_metric_is_alike_or_better"...we couldn't find a better
name..but if you have one :) let me know


Cheers,

-- 
Antonio Quartulli

..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara