Octavian Purdila wrote:
quoted text
> On Friday 04 July 2008, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> 
> 
>>>1. RX path
>>>- add a new field in skb to keep the hardware stamp (hwstamp)
>>>- add a new socket flag to enable RX stamping
>>>- add a new control message to retrieve the hwstamp from the skb to
>>>user-space application (for UDP and maybe PF_PACKET)
>>
>>The existing skb timestamp is there, and if the hardware supports it, it
>>could be updated by the device driver  I had a version of sky2 that did
>>just that but never fully pushed it upstream because of available time and
>>testing issues.
>>
>>The API's are already there (and used) for timestamping; don't invent
>>new ones.
> 
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to respond.
> 
> The hardware we will be using will not have the timestamping unit synchronized 
> to gettimeofday(). In this conditions, is it OK to put our hw stamp into 
> skb->tstamp?

I've not had a good emily litella moment in at least a week, so I'll ask 
- if the clock in the hardware generating the timestamp and the clock in 
the host aren't synchronized in _some_ way, what benefit is there to 
putting the hardware's timestamp in there?

rick jones
wonders the extent to which 1588 might enable one-way latency 
measurements in something like netperf...
--
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