[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABeXuvqgPE_Cft+T0fSw8zT09uCKWQGUB+bVNqQDk6fOinn8rA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:06:10 -0800
From: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To: willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Network Devel Mailing List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] socket: Disentangle SOCK_RCVTSTAMPNS from SOCK_RCVTSTAMP
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:59 PM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 3:59 AM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > SOCK_RCVTSTAMPNS is never set alone. SOCK_RCVTSTAMP
> > is always set along with SOCK_RCVTSTAMPNS. This leads to
> > checking for two flag states whenever we need to check for
> > SOCK_RCVTSTAMPS.
> >
> > Also SOCK_RCVTSTAMPS was the only flag that needed to be
> > checked in order to verify if either of the two flags are
> > set. But, the two features are not actually dependent on
> > each other. This artificial dependency creates more
> > confusion.
>
> This is done so that the hot path only has to check one flag
> in the common case where no timestamp is requested.
In that case we could just check it this way:
if (newsk->sk_flags & SK_FLAGS_TIMESTAMP)
We are already doing this in many places.
I do not see any other reason for the two timestamps to be intertwined.
Do you have any objections to using this patch and replacing the
checks as above?
-Deepa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists