[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180118171335.bhyl76wobdffedho@localhost>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:13:35 -0800
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
Cc: Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, john.stultz@...aro.org,
Richard Cochran <rcochran@...utronix.de>, jiri@...nulli.us,
ivan.briano@...el.com, henrik@...tad.us, jhs@...atatu.com,
levi.pearson@...man.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
anna-maria@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC v2 net-next 01/10] net: Add a new socket
option for a future transmit time.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:42:27AM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> In the discussion about the v1 patchset, there was a question if the
> cmsg should include a clockid_t. Without that, how can an application
> prevent the packet from being sent using an incorrect clock, e.g.
> the system clock when it expects it to be a PHC, or a different PHC
> when the socket is not bound to a specific interface?
Right, the clockid_t should be passed in through the CMSG along with
the time.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists