On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 08:21:22PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > What contract, who said that this control channel is _only_ for TX > timestamps, and for how many TX timestamps it is?
Um, there can't be more time stamps than transmitted frames. > If a future kernel decided to send more data to programs who opted in > to the error queue, and that kernel decision were to break ptp4l, > could you honestly say it's the kernel's fault? You are missing the point entirely. This is about poll(2) and not about the socket error queue. POLLERR might possibly one day acquire some kind of push semantics (i.e. unwanted by user space) on the kind of DGRAM sockets we use. In addition, if ever a pipe-like transport appears (and I think it not unlikely), then POLLERR will definitely appear, and this patch prepares for that day. If a given driver is spewing out extra time stamps, then it is most definitely the kernel's fault! Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
