On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 20:53 +0000, Mark Smith wrote:
quoted text
> Just a quick suggestion for storing hardware timestamps, how about
> storing them in the new skb's control block?
> 
> From what I understand, any private users of the control block are
> supposed to ignore the existing value, and if a protocol/tap is going
> to be looking at the new skb, it should have done a skb_share_check()
> first to grab it's own private copy if necessary, protecting the
> control block stored timestamp value from any of the other skb
> users who might change the control block value for their own purposes.

My understanding of sk_buff->cb might be wrong, but isn't each layer
allowed to overwrite it as the packet traverses the different queues?
skb_share_check() is not mandatory: the owner of a packet has to call it
if he wants to preserve the control block, not the recipient of a
packet.

If that understanding is correct, then I don't see how the control block
can be used to communicate information across layers. Or do I miss
something fundamental?

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html