[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1226477344.31699.44.camel@ecld0pohly>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:09:04 +0100
From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@...el.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Ingo Oeser <netdev@...eo.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@...tkopp.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/13] extended semantic of sk_buff::tstamp: lowest
bit marks hardware time stamps
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 07:41 +0000, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Please use ktime_t instead of "union ktime"
Are you sure?
include/linux/ktime.h says
typedef union ktime ktime_t; /* Kill this */
and the CodingStyle also seems to be against it.
I thought it would be good to avoid using the typedef in new code, but
if consistency with the existing code is preferred, then I'll change it.
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * make sure that lowest bit is never set: it marks hardware
> > + * time stamps
> > + */
> > +#if BITS_PER_LONG != 64 && !defined(CONFIG_KTIME_SCALAR)
> > + skb->tstamp.tv.sec = skb->tstamp.tv.sec / 2 * 2;
>
> .tv.sec ? are you sure you dont want .tv.nsec ?
Eek! Right. I'm pretty sure I compiled this in 32 bit mode, but I
haven't actually tried the result.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
--
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