[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZCUDFyNQoulZRsRQ@Laptop-X1>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 11:33:43 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: add software timestamping support
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 12:27:11PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:13:37AM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > At present, bonding attempts to obtain the timestamp (ts) information of
> > the active slave. However, this feature is only available for mode 1, 5,
> > and 6. For other modes, bonding doesn't even provide support for software
> > timestamping. To address this issue, let's call ethtool_op_get_ts_info
> > when there is no primary active slave. This will enable the use of software
> > timestamping for the bonding interface.
>
> Would it make sense to check if all devices in the bond support
> SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE before returning it for the bond?
> Applications might expect that a SW TX timestamp will be always
> provided if the capability is reported.
In my understanding this is a software feature, no need for hardware support.
In __sock_tx_timestamp() it will set skb tx_flags when we have
SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE flag. Do I understand wrong?
Thanks
Hangbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists