[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96b5bf3f-b99d-46ac-a22c-754582020c17@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 14:11:07 -0800
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
willemb@...gle.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me,
haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, horms@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 06/15] net-timestamp: prepare for isolating
two modes of SO_TIMESTAMPING
On 1/12/25 3:37 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
> void __skb_tstamp_tx(struct sk_buff *orig_skb,
> const struct sk_buff *ack_skb,
> struct skb_shared_hwtstamps *hwtstamps,
> - struct sock *sk, int tstype)
> + struct sock *sk, bool sw, int tstype)
Instead of adding a new "bool sw" and changing all callers, is it the same as
testing "!hwtstamps" ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists