[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <516BAE3A.5020508@onera.fr>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:37:30 +0200
From: Paul Chavent <Paul.Chavent@...ra.fr>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
daniel.borkmann@....ee.ethz.ch, xemul@...allels.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-packet: tx timestamping on tpacket ring
On 04/14/2013 03:07 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:52:16PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>
>> While going a bit more through the code, I'm wondering .. if we want to support
>> TX timestamps, could we also support SW _and_ HW timestamps e.g. similar as in
>> sock_recv_timestamp()? I'm asking, because we already allow setting the flags
>> for it via sock_tx_timestamp(). This might be good, if possible.
>
> And while you are at it, you could also fix the receive code.
>
> As it stand now, it is fairly useless, since there is no way for user
> space to tell which kind of time stamp has been reported. In fact, the
> code will silently intermingle hardware and software time stamps. That
> is surely a mean trick to play on the users.
Isn't it the one that the user ask with setsockopt(fd, SOL_PACKET,
PACKET_TIMESTAMP, ×tamping, sizeof(timestamping)) ?
However, i wonder why you added an other sockopt that do the same thing
as SOL_SOCKET/SO_TIMESTAMPING sockopt ?
Paul.
--
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