On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:14:15PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2015, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > After a quick look through, the biggest question in my mind is what > > should the timestamp value in the wc be? > > > > Right now it is some coded thing in clock cycles. > > This is sufficient since it can be converted to ns or whatever one wants.
Sure it is sufficient, but is it a robust UAPI, will it support multiple hardware vendors? Is anyone else in ethernet using verbs to deliver IP packets? Having a conversion function, or doing it in the wc generation is more 'obviously safe' for future proofing the UAPI. > > Should we require the driver to convert to ns before passing the wc > > back to the app? (Looks like the socket implementation uniformly uses > > us or ns) > But that requires additional processing. Well, it is only additional if the app is going to ignore the time stamp or not convert it to ns right away. Is that the common use case? Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
