[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <685031054a4b2_20ce86294c8@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:58:13 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] net: timestamp: add helper returning skb's tx
tstamp
Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 6/16/25 03:31, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >> Add a helper function skb_get_tx_timestamp() that returns a tx timestamp
> >> associated with an error queue skb.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
> >> ---
> >> include/net/sock.h | 9 +++++++++
> >> net/socket.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> >> index 92e7c1aae3cc..0b96196d8a34 100644
> >> --- a/include/net/sock.h
> >> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> >> @@ -2677,6 +2677,15 @@ void __sock_recv_timestamp(struct msghdr *msg, struct sock *sk,
> >> void __sock_recv_wifi_status(struct msghdr *msg, struct sock *sk,
> >> struct sk_buff *skb);
> >>
> >> +enum {
> >> + NET_TIMESTAMP_ORIGIN_SW = 0,
> >> + NET_TIMESTAMP_ORIGIN_HW = 1,
> >> +};
> >
> > Can you avoid introducing a new enum, and instead just return
> > SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_HARDWARE (1) or SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE (2)?
>
> I can't say I like it more because TX_{SW,HW} is just a small
> subset of SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags and the caller by default
> could assume that there might be other values as well, but let
> me send v5 and we'll see which is better.
This is quite a lot of new timestamping logic for only io_uring as
user, and I don't see any other user of it coming soon. I also see no
easy way to make it more concise, so it's fine. But this at least
avoids one extra new enum.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists