Hello! > But that never happens right?
Right. Well, not right. It happens. Simply because you get packet with newer timestamp after previous handler saw this packet and did some actions. I just do not see any bad consequences. > And do you have some other prefered way to solve this? Even if the timer > was fast it would be still good to avoid it in the fast path when DHCPD > is running. No. The way, which you suggested, seems to be the best. 1. It even does not disable possibility to record timestamp inside driver, which Alan was afraid of. The sequence is: if (!skb->tstamp.off_sec) net_timestamp(skb); 2. Maybe, netif_rx() should continue to get timestamp in netif_rx(). 3. NAPI already introduced almost the same inaccuracy. And it is really silly to waste time getting timestamp in netif_receive_skb() a few moments before the packet is delivered to a socket. 4. ...but clock source, which takes one of top lines in profiles must be repaired yet. :-) Alexey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html