Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] packet: experimental support for 64-bit timestamps

2017-11-28 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:08 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Arnd Bergmann > Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:02:05 +0100 > >> Does this mean you think the general idea of an extended interface >> for 64-bit timestamps is useful for traditional packet sockets? I >> think that was still an open question,

Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] packet: experimental support for 64-bit timestamps

2017-11-28 Thread David Miller
From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:02:05 +0100 > Does this mean you think the general idea of an extended interface > for 64-bit timestamps is useful for traditional packet sockets? I > think that was still an open question, though we seem to be getting > closer to consensus on the imp

Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] packet: experimental support for 64-bit timestamps

2017-11-28 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:05 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Arnd Bergmann > Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:14:05 +0100 > >> The implementation is fairly straightforward, but I'm less sure about the >> interface. Using SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags in PACKET_TIMESTAMP is a bit >> odd already since most of

Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] packet: experimental support for 64-bit timestamps

2017-11-28 Thread David Miller
From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:14:05 +0100 > The implementation is fairly straightforward, but I'm less sure about the > interface. Using SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags in PACKET_TIMESTAMP is a bit > odd already since most of the other flags make no sense here. Adding two > more flags t

Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] packet: experimental support for 64-bit timestamps

2017-11-28 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Unfortunately, we're already stuck with SOL_PACKET/PACKET_TIMESTAMP > accepting SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RAW_HARDWARE. > > Perhaps we can define a new PF_PACKET specific enum where the > e

Re: [PATCH] [RFC v2] packet: experimental support for 64-bit timestamps

2017-11-28 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > This is a second attempt to allow 64-bit timestamps in packet sockets, Thanks for coding up this variant. > The implementation is fairly straightforward, but I'm less sure about the > interface. Using SOF_TIMESTAMPING_* flags in PACKET_TIME

[PATCH] [RFC v2] packet: experimental support for 64-bit timestamps

2017-11-28 Thread Arnd Bergmann
This is a second attempt to allow 64-bit timestamps in packet sockets, this time retaining the existing three API versions, and instead using flags for the timestamping interface that let us reinterpret the existing fields. We already have an interface to select the timestamp source to be either s