| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150823112556.GA8569@localhost.localdomain> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 13:25:56 +0200 From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: "Christopher S. Hall" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, john.stultz@...aro.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, peterz@...radead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] Add support for driver cross-timestamp to PTP_SYS_OFFSET ioctl On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 10:15:00AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > So why can't you take N samples from the synced hardware? It does not > make any sense to me to switch to the imprecise mode if nsamples > 1. Ok, then I prefer to leave this "imprecise" method in place and ... > You can also provide a new IOCTL PTP_SYS_OFFSET_PRECISE which returns > -ENOSYS if hardware timestamping is not available and avoid the whole > nsamples dance for the case where we can get precise timestamps. have this for the new way. By keeping the imprecise method, we will be able to run both methods on the new hardware. That will help to quantify how imprecise the old method is. Thanks, Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists