[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAsGZS556o4iXtsWBzpiXxmv4isoZzw_h+RNv5eBMTGOsK905w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:07:40 -0400
From: chetan loke <loke.chetan@...il.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
"john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net V4 2/2] igb: offer a PTP Hardware Clock instead of the
timecompare method
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Richard Cochran
<richardcochran@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:39:08PM -0400, chetan loke wrote:
>>
>> So, how is it working today? Because we could have tx and rx
>> completions on different CPUs. Is it not possible to have the
>> following race today - between timecompare_update->timecompare_offset
>> -> timecounter_readdelta of say Rx and timecounter_cyc2time from Tx?
>
> I works (in the igb) because of the spinlock. You know, that thing
> that you are so against using.
>
I meant, was there a lock before the PHC functionality in igb?
>
>> How about rate limiting at the PHC class driver level? And then it
>> will work across the board for all the adapters at the device level.
>
> No, don't go there. Enough bikeshedding already. If you have a serious
can a user without root privileges use get/adj/set time ioctls for the
PHC functionality?
> Thanks,
> Richard
Chetan
--
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