[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e008b2aa-8a36-44af-ad57-f5cd9658bb4f@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:12:35 -0700
From: "Abhishek Chauhan (ABC)" <quic_abchauha@...cinc.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
CC: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, <kernel@...cinc.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Halaney
<ahalaney@...hat.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>, bpf
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"Alexei
Starovoitov" <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4] net: Re-use and set mono_delivery_time bit
for userspace tstamp packets
On 3/19/2024 12:46 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 3/18/24 12:02 PM, Abhishek Chauhan (ABC) wrote:
>>>>>>> I think the "struct inet_frag_queue" also needs a new "user_delivery_time"
>>>>>>> field. "mono_delivery_time" is already in there.
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>
>> Martin, Do we really need to add user_delivery_time as part of inet_frag_queue struct? I was wondering why is this required since we are using tstamp_type:2 to
>> distinguish between timestamp anyway .
>
>
> The context for this was before combining mono_delivery_time:1 and user_delivery_time:1 into tstamp_type:2. No need to add user_delivery_time to inet_frag_queue because it is combined into tstamp_type:2. If mono_delivery_time:1 is replaced with tstamp_type:2 in sk_buff, the same should be done in inet_frag_queue.
>
Thats what i was planning to do. This is more or like the patch 3 - when brings in the changes of two bits.
Thanks Martin for clarification.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists