netdev - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] net: support for hardware timestamping

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: <200807291911.10364.opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:11:10 +0300
From:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] net: support for hardware timestamping

On Tuesday 29 July 2008, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> In my sky2 sample code, I took a different approach:
>  1. Why have HW timestamps different than existing timestamps? If you
>     just use existing timestamp, no socket API is needed.

I agree that is a much better approach if you are ok with the variance 
introduced by synchronizing the HW timestamps with the CPU clock.

But if you want to precisely measure one-way delays, and if you have the hw 
timestamp units synchronized across the nodes, then you need the hardware 
timesetamp. 

Or maybe I am stuck on this idea because of doing things this way for a long 
time and there is a better solution?

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