[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <486D6B87.9030409@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:15:03 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
CC: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] support for IEEE 1588
Octavian Purdila wrote:
> On Friday 04 July 2008, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>
>>>1. RX path
>>>- add a new field in skb to keep the hardware stamp (hwstamp)
>>>- add a new socket flag to enable RX stamping
>>>- add a new control message to retrieve the hwstamp from the skb to
>>>user-space application (for UDP and maybe PF_PACKET)
>>
>>The existing skb timestamp is there, and if the hardware supports it, it
>>could be updated by the device driver I had a version of sky2 that did
>>just that but never fully pushed it upstream because of available time and
>>testing issues.
>>
>>The API's are already there (and used) for timestamping; don't invent
>>new ones.
>
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to respond.
>
> The hardware we will be using will not have the timestamping unit synchronized
> to gettimeofday(). In this conditions, is it OK to put our hw stamp into
> skb->tstamp?
I've not had a good emily litella moment in at least a week, so I'll ask
- if the clock in the hardware generating the timestamp and the clock in
the host aren't synchronized in _some_ way, what benefit is there to
putting the hardware's timestamp in there?
rick jones
wonders the extent to which 1588 might enable one-way latency
measurements in something like netperf...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists