netdev - Re: [rfc] new sk_buff member: hwstamp

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200807142307.11575.opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:07:11 +0300
From:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
To:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@...tkopp.net>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] new sk_buff member: hwstamp

On Monday 14 July 2008, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>
> > The problem for this approach in our usecase (one way delay measurement)
> > is that the real time clock of the CPUs (of the RX and TX ports) is not
> > synchronized, but the hw timestamp (implemented in the NIC/FPGA) is.
>
> Is it necessary to have syncronized clocks on the different CPUs or is
> it feasible to calculate a per-cpu-clock offset in your driver, so that
> you can build a complete timing overview of your setup?
>

Sorry,  what I meant by CPU is a complete and independent system: CPU + memory 
+ NIC. The real time of the CPUs of the two systems are not synchronized, but 
the NIC clock of both systems is.

Thanks,
tavi
--
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