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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:26:19 +0100 From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com> To: "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com> Cc: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Kalluru, Sudarsana" <Sudarsana.Kalluru@...ium.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] qed: Add infrastructure for PTP support. On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 09:36:11PM +0000, Mintz, Yuval wrote: > I might have gotten it all wrong, but I was under the assumption that time- > stamped packets are periodic, and that the interval between two isn't > going to be so small. That is an incorrect assumption. Consider the Delay_Req packets arriving on a port in the MASTER state. > Is so, how does having a couple of additional instructions in between > jeopardizes the next time stamp? It is not just about the few instructions, but there is also preemption possible. Thanks, Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists