[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180124030436.sukodrg2t3ckazu6@localhost>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 19:04:36 -0800
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
Cc: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
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 Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:22:37PM -0800, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> What I think would be the ideal scenario would be if the clockid
> parameter to the TBS Qdisc would not be necessary (if offload was
> enabled), but that's not quite possible right now, because there's no
> support for using the hrtimer infrastructure with dynamic clocks
> (/dev/ptp*).
We don't need hrtimer for HW offloading. Just enqueue the packets. I
thought we agreed that user space get the ordering correct. In fact,
davem insisted on it, IIRC.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists