netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH next-queue v2 3/3] igc: Add support for PTP getcrosststamp()

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87361326fq.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:07:21 -0800
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, andre.guedes@...el.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH next-queue v2 3/3] igc: Add support
 for PTP getcrosststamp()

Hi Jakub,

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:

> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:21:48 -0800 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> > Also, what is the point of providing time measurements every 1
>> > millisecond?  
>> 
>> I sincerely have no idea. I had no power on how the hardware was
>> designed, and how PTM was implemented in HW.
>
> Is the PTMed latency not dependent on how busy the bus is?
> That'd make 1ms more reasonable.

At least from the values of the registers I couldn't see any difference
if I was fully using the 2.5G ethernet link or not.


Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius