Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 5/7] net: fix documentation of struct scm_timestamping

2017-05-19 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 03:38:30PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Miroslav Lichvar >> wrote: >> > +Note that if the SO_TIMESTAMP or SO_TIMESTAMPNS option is

Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 5/7] net: fix documentation of struct scm_timestamping

2017-05-19 Thread Miroslav Lichvar
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 03:38:30PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Miroslav Lichvar > wrote: > > +Note that if the SO_TIMESTAMP or SO_TIMESTAMPNS option is enabled > > +together with SO_TIMESTAMPING using SOF_TIMESTAMPING_SOFTWARE, a false

Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 5/7] net: fix documentation of struct scm_timestamping

2017-05-18 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > The scm_timestamping struct may return multiple non-zero fields, e.g. > when both software and hardware RX timestamping is enabled, or when the > SO_TIMESTAMP(NS) option is combined with SCM_TIMESTAMPING and a false

[PATCH v5 net-next 5/7] net: fix documentation of struct scm_timestamping

2017-05-18 Thread Miroslav Lichvar
The scm_timestamping struct may return multiple non-zero fields, e.g. when both software and hardware RX timestamping is enabled, or when the SO_TIMESTAMP(NS) option is combined with SCM_TIMESTAMPING and a false software timestamp is generated in the recvmsg() call in order to always return a