Now the function properly uses ring arithmetic to return signed value
in range (inclusive):
[-MICROPY_PY_UTIME_TICKS_PERIOD/2, MICROPY_PY_UTIME_TICKS_PERIOD/2-1].
That means that function can properly process 2 time values away from
each other within MICROPY_PY_UTIME_TICKS_PERIOD/2 ticks, but away in
both directions. For example, if tick value 'a' predates tick value 'b',
ticks_diff(a, b) will return negative value, and positive value otherwise.
But at positive value of MICROPY_PY_UTIME_TICKS_PERIOD/2-1, the result
of the function will wrap around to negative -MICROPY_PY_UTIME_TICKS_PERIOD/2,
in other words, if a follows b in more than MICROPY_PY_UTIME_TICKS_PERIOD/2 - 1
ticks, the function will "consider" a to actually predate b.
It's implemented in terms of usleep(), and POSIX doesn't guarantee that
usleep() can sleep for more than a second. This restriction unlikely
applies to any real-world system, but...
Based on the earlier discussed RFC. Practice showed that the most natural
order for arguments corresponds to mathematical subtraction:
ticks_diff(x, y) <=> x - y
Also, practice showed that in real life, it's hard to order events by time
of occurance a priori, events tend to miss deadlines, etc. and the expected
order breaks. And then there's a need to detect such cases. And ticks_diff
can be used exactly for this purpose, if it returns a signed, instead of
unsigned, value. E.g. if x is scheduled time for event, and y is the current
time, then if ticks_diff(x, y) < 0 then event has missed a deadline (and e.g.
needs to executed ASAP or skipped). Returning in this case a large unsigned
number (like ticks_diff behaved previously) doesn't make sense, and such
"large unsigned number" can't be reliably detected per our definition of
ticks_* function (we don't expose to user level maximum value, it can be
anything, relatively small or relatively large).
Paul Sokolovsky
Fabio Utzig
Alex March