[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJZbepLCr+biMWGeSFvG0ub3tdKfW3ci+75Hz9ndO1M9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 09:47:40 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Vinicius Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
Henrik Austad <henrik@...tad.us>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Levi Pearson <levi.pearson@...man.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 net-next 08/18] net: SO_TXTIME: Add clockid and
drop_if_late params
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Richard Cochran
<richardcochran@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 09:35:24AM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> The discussion on v2 ended with this per-message idea, in preference
>> to the per-socket idea, IIRC.
>
> (But my own opinion is that per-socket is good enough...)
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
I would love if skb->tstamp could be either 0 or expressed in
ktime_get() base all the time.
( Even if we would have to convert this to other bases when/if needed)
Having to deal with many clockid in the core networking stack seems
over engineered.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists